Work First,

Study Second

Adult Undergraduates

Who Combine Employment

and Postsecondary Enrollment

Postsecondary Education

Descriptive Analysis Reports

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2003–167
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2003–167 

Work First, 

Study Second 

Adult Undergraduates 

Who Combine Employment 

and Postsecondary Enrollment 

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Reports 

August 2003 

Ali Berker 

Laura Horn 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

C. Dennis Carroll 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 
U.S. Department of Education 

Rod Paige 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Val Plisko 

Associate Commissioner 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and 

reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate 

to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United 

States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such 

statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report 

on education activities in foreign countries. 

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, 

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality 

data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, 

practitioners, data users, and the general public. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a 

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information 

effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would 

like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to: 

 National Center for Education Statistics 

 Institute of Education Sciences 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5651 

August 2003 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is: http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Suggested Citation 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Work First, Study Second: Adult 

Undergraduates Who Combine Employment and Postsecondary Enrollment, NCES 2003–167, by Ali Berker and 

Laura Horn. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll. Washington, DC: 2003. 

For ordering information on this report, write: 

U.S. Department of Education 

ED Pubs 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-PUBS; or order online at http://www.edpubs.org

Content Contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

About 43 percent of undergraduates who were 

enrolled in postsecondary education during the 

1999–2000 academic year were age 24 or older. 

Most of these older undergraduates (82 percent) 

worked while enrolled in postsecondary education 

(Horn, Peter, and Rooney 2002). In total, these 

working adults made up roughly one-third of the 

undergraduate population. This study examines 

the characteristics and educational experiences of 

working adult undergraduates, focusing on those 

who considered employment their primary 

activity. The analysis compares two groups of 

working adults according to the emphasis or 

importance they placed on work and 

postsecondary enrollment when they were asked: 

“While you were enrolled and working would you 

say you were primarily: 1) a student working to 

meet expenses or 2) an employee who decided to 

enroll in school?” Throughout this report, students 

who identified themselves as employees who 

decided to enroll in school are referred to as 

“employees who study,” while those who 

identified themselves as students working to meet 

expenses are referred to as “students who work.” 

Data 

The profile of working adults is based on the 

1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:2000), a representative sample of 

all students enrolled in postsecondary education in 

the 1999–2000 academic year. The analysis of 

postsecondary completion is based on the 1996/01 

Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal 

Study (BPS:96/01), a longitudinal cohort of all 

students who began postsecondary education in 

1995–96 and who were last surveyed in 2001, 

about 6 years after their initial enrollment. The 

NPSAS sample is limited to undergraduates age 

24 or older. The age of 24 was used to identify 

adult undergraduates because this is the age that 

students are recognized as financially independent 

of their parents for financial aid purposes. The 

NPSAS analysis focuses entirely on working 

undergraduates, but the totals presented in the 

tables include the 18 percent of nonworking adult 

undergraduates. The BPS sample is limited to 

students age 24 or older who worked while 

enrolled in 1995–96 (i.e., they were working while 

enrolled in their first term), regardless of their 

working status in subsequent years. The BPS 

survey sample has proportionally fewer older 

students than the NPSAS survey because to be 

eligible for BPS, students must be enrolling in 

postsecondary education for the first time. 

Therefore, returning students are not included. 

A Profile of Working Adult 

Undergraduates 

In 1999–2000, about two-thirds of working 

adult undergraduates (those age 24 or older) 

considered employment their main activity—

employees who study—while the remaining onethird characterized themselves primarily as 

students who worked to pay their education 

expenses—students who work. Employees who 

study were older on average than students who 

work (36 vs. 30 years old). As shown in figure A, 

roughly two-thirds of employees who study
Executive Summary 

iv 

Figure A. Percentage distribution by age and the average age for undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/employee 

Figure A. role: 1999–2000

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:2000).

Employees who study

(56 percent)

34 31

35

Students who work

(26 percent)

12

62

25

24–29 years

30–39 years

40 years or older

Average age = 36 Average age = 30

were age 30 or older, compared with just over 

one-third of students who work. Employees who 

study were also more likely to be married (52 

percent vs. 31 percent), and to have children and 

other dependents (57 percent vs. 43 percent) 

(figure B). 

A fundamental difference between employees 

who study and students who work is how they 

combined work and attendance. As might be 

expected, employees who study devoted more 

time to work and less to attending classes, while 

students who work did the opposite (figure C). At 

least three-quarters of employees who study 

worked full time (87 percent) or attended part time 

(76 percent), and roughly two-thirds (68 percent) 

did both. In contrast, at least 6-in-10 students who 

work attended school full time (68 percent) or 

worked part time (60 percent), while roughly half 

(46 percent) did both. Thus, employees who study 

most often worked full time and attended part 

time, while students who work most often 

attended full time and worked part time. 

In summary, among undergraduates age 24 or 

older, those who characterized their primary 

activity as employment were older, worked more, 

attended school less, and were more likely to have 

family responsibilities than their peers whose 

primary activity was being a student. 

Enrollment, Degree Program, and 

Field of Study 

Even though work and attendance patterns 

clearly distinguished employees who study from 

students who work, there were some exceptions. 

For example, roughly one-fifth of each group 

combined full-time work and full-time attendance 

(19 percent of employees who study and 22 

percent of students who work). In previous 

studies, attendance status was strongly linked with 

postsecondary completion: part-time students were 

much less likely to complete a postsecondary 

credential than full-time students (see, for 

example, Berkner, Cuccaro-Alamin, and 

McCormick 1996). Therefore, when examining 
Executive Summary 

v 

Figure B. Percentage distribution of undergraduates age 24 or older according to marital status and number of

Figure B. dependents other than spouse, by student/employee role: 1999–2000

1

Includes single, separated, divorced, or widowed.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:2000).

Marital status

Number of dependents

Employees who study

48 52

Students who work

31

69

Married

Not married

Employees who study

39 43

18

Students who work

27

57

17

None

One

Two or more

1
Executive Summary 

vi 

Figure C. Percentage distribution of working undergraduates age 24 or older according to separate and combined work 

Figure C. and attendance intensity, by student/employee role: 1999–2000

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and parttime enrollment.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:2000).

Attendance status

Employment status

Attendance and employment status

Employees who study

76

24

Students who work

68

32 Attend full time

Attend part time

Employees who study

87

13

Students who work

60

40

Work full time

Work part time

Employees who study

8 5

68

19

Students who work

14

22

18

46

Work full time,

attend part time

Work full time,

attend full time

Work part time,

attend full time

Work part time,

attend part time
Executive Summary 

vii 

the educational characteristics of each group of 

students in the current analysis, full-time and parttime students were examined separately in order to 

compare the two groups while controlling for 

attendance status. 

Consistent with differences in the time they 

spent in the classroom, employees who study and 

students who work differed in where they 

enrolled and what they studied. Employees who 

study attended community colleges more often 

than students who work (61 percent vs. 39 

percent) and public 4-year colleges and 

universities less often (17 percent vs. 34 percent) 

(table A). Even among students who attended 

exclusively part time, these differences 

prevailed. Among full-time students, employees 

who study were more likely than students who 

work to be enrolled in private for-profit 

institutions (14 percent vs. 10 percent). 

Corresponding to their predominance in 

community colleges, employees who study were 

more likely than students who work to be in 

programs leading to an associate’s degree (45 

percent vs. 37 percent) and were less likely to be in 

bachelor’s degree programs (23 percent vs. 45 

percent). In addition, among full-time students, 

employees who study were more likely than 

students who work to be enrolled in certificate 

programs. The same was not observed for part-time 

students. Employees who study were also more 

likely than students who work to be taking courses 

not leading to any degree (10 percent vs. 2 percent). 

Along with differences in their rates of 

participation in degree programs, the two groups 

of working adults also differed in their fields of 

study. Employees who study majored in computer 

science, business, vocational, and technical fields 

more often, and majored in social/behavioral 

Table A. Percentage distribution of institution attended for undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/employee role and

Table A. attendance intensity: 1999–2000

More than

Private not- Private one institution

Public 4-year for-profit 4-year Public 2-year for-profit and other

 Total 22.5 10.3 53.9 6.5 6.9

Students who work 34.5 10.6 39.4 7.6 8.0

Employees who study 16.8 11.3 61.2 4.8 6.0

 All full-time students 27.7 12.8 36.8 12.6 10.0

Students who work 37.6 12.0 31.9 9.9 8.6

Employees who study 16.4 17.7 39.4 14.5 12.0

 All part-time students 18.6 8.5 66.4 2.0 4.5

Students who work 27.8 7.6 55.1 2.8 6.7

Employees who study 16.9 9.3 68.1 1.7 4.0

1

Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did not 

work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total

Full-time1

Part-time
Executive Summary 

viii 

sciences, life sciences, and health fields less often 

than students who work. 

In summary, among working adult 

undergraduates, employees who study were more 

likely than students who work to attend 

community colleges and to be working toward 

associate’s degrees (among both full-time and 

part-time students) and vocational certificates 

(among full-time students only). They were also 

more likely than students who work to major in 

occupational fields of study such as computer 

science and were less likely to major in behavioral 

sciences. 

Reasons Employees Who Study 

Enrolled 

Given their focus on work, employees who 

study were asked several questions about their 

reasons for enrolling in postsecondary education. 

It is likely that students who emphasize the 

importance of their employment over enrollment 

would be interested in enhancing their position in 

the labor market. This was found to be the case for 

85 percent of adult employees who study, who 

reported that gaining skills to advance in their 

current job or future career was an important 

consideration in their postsecondary education. 

However, 89 percent also reported that personal 

enrichment was an important factor. While 

personal enrichment and obtaining additional job 

skills were important reasons for enrolling for 

most employees who study, so was completing a 

degree or credential: 80 percent reported enrolling 

for this latter reason. In addition, roughly onethird (36 percent) of employees who study had 

enrolled to obtain additional education required by 

their job. 

Financial Aid 

Because employees who study are more likely 

than students who work to attend postsecondary 

education on a part-time basis, their tuition 

expenses are lower.1 In addition, employees who 

study are more likely than students who work to 

be employed full time. Lower tuition combined 

with full-time employment means that employees 

who study have less need for financial aid than 

students who work. Employees who study, 

therefore, were less likely than students who work 

to apply for and receive financial aid in 1999–

2000. Nevertheless, roughly half (48 percent) of 

employees who study received some type of 

financial aid, averaging about $3,000 per 

recipient. About 40 percent of employees who 

study received grants, averaging about $1,500, and 

12 percent received loans, averaging about $5,600. 

In addition, about one-quarter (23 percent) of 

employees who study received aid from their 

employers, averaging about $1,200. Employer aid 

was the only type of financial aid that employees 

who study received more often than students who 

work (23 percent vs. 5 percent). The difference 

between the percentages of employees who study 

and students who work who received different 

types of aid held among both full-time and parttime students with one exception: among part-time 

students, no difference in the percentage receiving 

grant aid could be detected. 

Among employees who study, those who were 

enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs were the 

most likely to receive employer aid (33 percent 

received an average of $2,200 in employer aid). In 

addition, 24 percent of employees who study who 

were not enrolled in any degree program also 

 

1For example, undergraduates attending a community college 

full time for a full year paid on average about $1,600 in 

tuition, compared with about $700 for those attending part 

time for a full year (Berkner et al. 2002). 
Executive Summary 

ix 

received employer aid (averaging about $400). 

Presumably employers encouraged such students 

to take certain courses rather than earn a formal 

credential. 

Persistence and Degree Completion 

In previous studies examining factors related to 

students’ risk of not completing their 

postsecondary education, working full time and 

attending classes part time were both 

independently associated with lower rates of 

persistence and degree attainment (Berkner, 

Cuccaro-Alamin, and McCormick 1996; Horn 

1996). Given these findings, 68 percent of 

working adults who identified themselves as 

employees who study in 1999–2000 carried a 

substantial risk of not completing their 

postsecondary program: they were both employed 

full time and attended part time (figure C). In 

contrast, 18 percent of students who work 

combined full-time work with part-time 

attendance. Based on these differences, it might be 

expected that the two groups of working adult 

undergraduates would have different outcomes 

when examining their completion rates. Indeed, 

among those who first began their postsecondary 

education in 1995–96, differences in outcomes 

were evident. 

Six years after students had begun their 

postsecondary education, 62 percent of employees 

who study had not completed a degree or 

certificate and were no longer enrolled, compared 

with 39 percent of students who work. Even 

among those who intended to obtain a degree or 

certificate, 55 percent of employees who study had 

not completed a degree or certificate and were no 

longer enrolled, compared with 38 percent of 

students who work (figure D). 

Among employees who study with reported 

degree or certificate intentions, the total 

percentage who attained any credential was 37 

percent, most often a vocational certificate (28 

percent). Among students who work, 44 percent 

had attained a postsecondary credential, and they, 

too, were most likely to have obtained a certificate 

(22 percent). However, 10 percent of students who 

work had completed a bachelor’s degree, compared 

with 2 percent of employees who study.2

Employees who study were at particular risk of 

leaving postsecondary education in their first year. 

Among students with a degree goal, 32 percent of 

employees who study left in their first year with 

no credential, compared with 7 percent of students 

who work. These students had not returned after 6 

years. After the first year, however, no difference 

could be detected between employees who study 

and students who work in their rates of attrition. 

Conclusions 

In 1999–2000, roughly two-thirds of working 

undergraduates age 24 or older reported that work 

was their primary activity. Among these 

employees who study, nearly 70 percent combined 

full-time work with part-time attendance. These 

working adults make up a large percentage of the 

undergraduate population and most of them pursue 

postsecondary education to obtain skills necessary 

to advance in their careers. Nearly one-half of 

employees who study received some sort of 

financial aid, including one-quarter who received 

aid from their employers. However, full-time work 

and part-time attendance combined with family 

responsibilities appeared to be barriers to 

completing a credential. Despite the fact that most 

 

2It also appeared as though students who work were more 

likely to have earned an associate’s degree, but due to small 

sample sizes, there was not enough statistical evidence to 

conclude such a difference. 
Executive Summary 

x 

Figure D. Percentage distribution of 6-year persistence and of highest degree attained in June 2001 for 1995–96 

Figure D. beginning postsecondary students age 24 or older with a degree goal, by degree goal and student/employee

Figure D. role when they first enrolled

1

The percentage who attained a bachelor’s degree rounded to zero and is, therefore, not shown on bar.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995/96 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Employees who study

46

63

54

55 8

8

3

9

9

7

45

22

9

28

20

6

6

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Certificate goal

Associate’s degree goal

Bachelor’s degree goal

Total with degree goal

Percent

Students who work

42

38

32

38 17

5

34

10

2

21

11

13

52

9

6

22

17

27

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Certificate goal

Associate’s degree goal

Bachelor’s degree goal

Total with degree goal

Percent

No degree attained,

not enrolled in 2001

No degree attained,

enrolled in 2001

Bachelor’s

degree

Associate’s

degree

Certificate

1

1

1

employees who study thought it was important to 

earn a formal credential, 62 percent had not done 

so within 6 years. Moreover, among those who 

left, most did so in their first year. In contrast, 

their counterparts whose focus was on 

postsecondary enrollment—students who work—

experienced more positive educational outcomes. 

These students, who were more likely to attend 

full time, work part time, and have fewer family 

responsibilities, were more likely to earn 

postsecondary credentials, especially bachelor’s 

degrees.
xi 

Foreword 

This study examines the characteristics and educational experiences of working adult 

undergraduates. The analysis is based on the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:2000), a representative sample of all students enrolled in postsecondary education 

in the 1999–2000 academic year. The analysis of postsecondary completion is based on the 

1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01), a longitudinal 

cohort of all students who began postsecondary education in 1995–96 and who were last 

surveyed in 2001, about 6 years after their initial enrollment. 
xii 

Acknowledgments 

The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of many individuals to the production of 

this report. At MPR Associates, Barbara Kridl, Andrea Livingston, Patti Gildersleeve, and 

Francesca Tussing edited, proofed, and formatted the report. 

At NCES, Paula Knepper provided a comprehensive technical and methodological review. 

The final report was reviewed by Steve Broughman, Gail Mulligan, and Karen O’Conor at 

NCES, Ellinor Greenburg of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Brian 

Trzebiatowski of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and Gregory 

Henschel of the Institute of Education Sciences. The authors extend their thanks to all these 

reviewers who helped strengthen the final report. 
xiii 

Table of Contents 

Page 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... iii 

Foreword................................................................................................................................. xi 

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................... xii 

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xv 

List of Figures......................................................................................................................... xviii

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 

Data.......................................................................................................................................... 5 

Profile of Working Adult Undergraduates.......................................................................... 7 

Age, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity....................................................................................... 7 

Parent’s Educational Attainment........................................................................................ 9 

Income Level...................................................................................................................... 10 

Marital Status and Number of Dependents ........................................................................ 11 

How Working Adults Combine Attendance and Employment.......................................... 15 

Enrollment Intensity........................................................................................................... 15 

Work Intensity.................................................................................................................... 17 

Work and Attendance Intensity.......................................................................................... 18 

Institutions Attended, Degree Programs, and Fields of Study........................................... 21 

Where Students Enrolled.................................................................................................... 21 

Degree Program.................................................................................................................. 22 

Fields of Study.................................................................................................................... 24 

Reasons Employees Who Study Enroll.............................................................................. 24 

Financial Aid........................................................................................................................... 27 

Type of Aid ........................................................................................................................ 28 

Source of Aid ..................................................................................................................... 30 

How Employees Who Study Use Financial Aid ................................................................ 30 

Working and Studying Full Time......................................................................................... 35 
Table of Contents

xiv 

Page 

Postsecondary Completion of Working Adult Undergraduates........................................ 39 

Six-Year Persistence and Attainment Rates....................................................................... 39 

Characteristics of Employees Who Study by Rates of Postsecondary Persistence and 

Completion...................................................................................................................... 43 

Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................... 45 

References............................................................................................................................... 47 

Appendix A—Glossary .......................................................................................................... 49 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology ............................................................... 59 

Appendix C—Supplementary Tables................................................................................... 67 
xv 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

Executive Summary 

A Percentage distribution of institution attended for undergraduates age 24 or older, by 

student/employee role and attendance intensity: 1999–2000.......................................... vii 

Report 

1 Percentage distribution of gender and race/ethnicity for undergraduates age 24 or 

older, by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000........................................... 9 

2 Percentage distribution of parents’ highest education levels for undergraduates age 24 

or older, by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000....................................... 10 

3 Percentage distribution of income quartiles for undergraduates age 24 or older and 

their average income in 1998, by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000..... 11 

4 Percentage of undergraduates age 24 or older according to their marital status, by 

student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000.......................................................... 13 

5 Percentage distribution of number of dependents other than spouse for undergraduates 

age 24 or older and the average number of dependents, by student/employee role and 

age group: 1999–2000..................................................................................................... 14 

6 Percentage of undergraduates age 24 or older according to their attendance intensity, 

by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000 ..................................................... 17 

7 Employment status of undergraduates age 24 or older during their postsecondary 

enrollment, by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000.................................. 18 

8 Percentage distribution of the enrollment and work intensity for undergraduates age 

24 or older, by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000.................................. 19 

9 Percentage distribution of institution attended for undergraduates age 24 or older, by 

student/employee role and attendance intensity: 1999–2000.......................................... 22 

10 Percentage distribution of degree program for undergraduates age 24 or older, by 

student/employee role and attendance intensity: 1999–2000.......................................... 23 
List of Tables

xvi 

Table Page 

11 Percentage distribution of major field of study for undergraduates age 24 or older, by 

student/employee role and gender: 1999–2000............................................................... 25 

12 Among undergraduates age 24 or older who considered themselves employees who 

study, percentage who reported important reasons for enrolling in postsecondary 

education, by selected student and enrollment characteristics: 1999–2000 .................... 26 

13 Percentage of undergraduates age 24 or older who applied for financial aid and who 

received various types of financial aid, by student/employee role and attendance 

intensity: 1999–2000 ....................................................................................................... 28 

14 Among undergraduate financial aid recipients age 24 or older, the average amount of 

aid received, by student/employee role and attendance intensity: 1999–2000................ 29 

15 Percentage of undergraduates age 24 or older who received aid from various sources, 

and among those who received aid, the average amount received, by student/employee 

role and attendance intensity: 1999–2000 ....................................................................... 31 

16 Among undergraduates age 24 or older who considered themselves employees who 

study, percentage who received various types of aid and amounts received among aid 

recipients, by degree program and type of institution and by attendance intensity: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... 32 

17 Among undergraduates age 24 or older who worked full time and attended full time, 

the percentage distribution (by columns) by selected student characteristics and 

student/employee role: 1999–2000 ................................................................................. 36 

18 Percentage distribution of the 6-year persistence status and of highest degree attained 

in June 2001 for 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students age 24 or older, by 

student/employee role and attendance status when they first enrolled............................ 40 

19 Percentage distribution of the 6-year persistence status and of highest degree attained 

in June 2001 for 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students age 24 or older, by 

student/employee role and degree goal when they first enrolled .................................... 42 

20 Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students age 24 or older who 

completed a credential or were still enrolled in June 2001, and the percentage 

distribution of those who left, by year of departure as of June 2001, by degree goal 

and student/employee role when they first enrolled........................................................ 43 

21 Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students age 24 or older who considered 

themselves employees who study, the percentage who attained any credential or were 

still enrolled in 2001, by selected student and enrollment characteristics ...................... 44 
List of Tables 

xvii 

Table Page 

Appendices 

B-1 Variables with response rates between 85 percent and 90 percent ................................. 62 

B-2 Standard errors for table 8: Percentage distribution of the enrollment and work 

intensity for undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/employee role and age group: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... 63 

C-1 Percentage of undergraduates age 24 or older according to their attendance intensity, 

by student/employee role, gender, and age group: 1999–2000 ....................................... 68 

C-2 Employment status of undergraduates age 24 or older during their postsecondary 

enrollment, by student/employee role, gender, and age group: 1999–2000.................... 69 

C-3 Percentage distribution of the enrollment and work intensity of undergraduates age 24 

or older, by student/employee role, gender, and age group: 1999–2000......................... 70 

C-4 Percentage distribution of institution attended for undergraduates age 24 or older, by 

student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000.......................................................... 71 

C-5 Percentage distribution of institution attended for undergraduates age 24 or older, by 

student/employee role, attendance intensity, and gender: 1999–2000 ............................ 72 

C-6 Percentage distribution by degree program for undergraduates age 24 or older, by 

student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000.......................................................... 73 

C-7 Percentage distribution by degree program for undergraduates age 24 or older, by 

student/employee role, attendance intensity, and gender: 1999–2000 ............................ 74 
xviii 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

Executive Summary 

A Percentage distribution by age and the average age for undergraduates age 24 or older, 

by student/employee role: 1999–2000............................................................................. iv 

B Percentage distribution of undergraduates age 24 or older according to marital status 

and number of dependents other than spouse, by student/employee role: 1999–2000 ... v 

C Percentage distribution of working undergraduates age 24 or older according to 

separate and combined work and attendance intensity, by student/employee role: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... vi 

D Percentage distribution of 6-year persistence and of highest degree attained in June 

2001 for 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students age 24 or older with a degree 

goal, by degree goal and student/employee role when they first enrolled....................... x 

Report 

1 Percentage of 1999–2000 undergraduates and 1995–96 beginning postsecondary 

students who were age 24 or older, and among these older undergraduates, the 

percentage distribution by reported student/employee role............................................. 6 

2 Percentage distribution by age and the average age for undergraduates age 24 or older, 

by student/employee role: 1999–2000............................................................................. 8 

3 Percentage distribution of undergraduates age 24 or older according to marital status 

and number of dependents other than spouse, by student/employee role: 1999–2000 ... 12 

4 Percentage distribution of working undergraduates age 24 or older according to 

separate and combined work and attendance intensity, by student/employee role: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... 16 

5 Percentage distribution by reported degree goal for 1995–96 beginning postsecondary 

students age 24 or older, by student/employee role......................................................... 41 
1 

Introduction 

Between 1970 and 1980 the proportion of students age 25 or older enrolled in degreegranting postsecondary institutions increased from 28 percent to 37 percent (U.S. Department of 

Education 2002). In the 1999–2000 academic year, 7.1 million undergraduates age 24 or older 

accounted for about 43 percent of all undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions. 

Among these older undergraduates, 40 percent were in their mid- to late 20s, 32 percent were in 

their 30s, and 28 percent were 40 or older.1 

Several factors have influenced the participation of older individuals in postsecondary 

education. First, changing skill requirements associated with emerging computer and information 

technologies have increased the need for additional training (Creighton and Hudson 2002). 

Second, the potential increase in the returns to a college degree has provided incentives for older 

individuals to enroll in or return to postsecondary education (Leigh and Gill 1997). Third, 

postsecondary education has become increasingly accessible to older individuals as a result of the 

increased effort of postsecondary institutions to meet the needs of older students (Phillippe and 

Patton 1999). 

In an earlier report, Choy and Premo (1995) examined the extent to which older 

undergraduates (age 24 or older) differed from their younger counterparts. The study found that 

older undergraduates were more likely than their younger counterparts to be married, to have 

dependents other than a spouse, and to have a parent with low educational attainment. This study 

also reported that older undergraduates were more likely than their younger counterparts to attend 

college part time, work full time, and enroll in public 2-year institutions, but were less likely to 

enroll in a formal degree or certificate program. 

When examining the persistence and attainment rates of older undergraduates, Choy and 

Premo (1995) and Horn (1996) found that older undergraduates were not meeting their degree 

goals at the same rates as their traditional age counterparts. Examining 3-year persistence and 

attainment rates for students who began their postsecondary education in 1989–90, Choy and 

Premo (1995) found that older undergraduates, particularly those seeking an associate’s or 

bachelor’s degree, were more likely than younger undergraduates to leave postsecondary 

education without attaining a degree and without returning. Using the same data, Horn (1996) 

 

11999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000), Data Analysis System. 
Introduction

2 

analyzed the experiences of “nontraditional students” who were identified by a variety of 

indicators related to age. The author noted significant differences in the attainment rates of 

traditional and nontraditional students, even after controlling for students’ degree goals. For 

example, among students with an associate’s degree goal, 53 percent of traditional beginning 

postsecondary students had attained an associate’s degree 5 years after enrolling, compared with 

27 percent of nontraditional students. Similarly, among those with a bachelor’s degree goal, 54 

percent of traditional students had attained a bachelor’s degree, compared with 31 percent of 

nontraditional students. 

Previous studies have also reported that most older students combine employment and 

postsecondary schooling. It is important, therefore, to define the older student population in a 

way that accounts for both employment and enrollment behaviors. This analysis compares two 

groups of working adult undergraduates enrolled in 1999–2000 according to the emphasis or 

importance they placed on work and postsecondary enrollment when they were asked: “While 

you were enrolled and working would you say you were primarily: 1) a student working to meet 

expenses or 2) an employee who decided to enroll in school?” Throughout this study, students 

who identified themselves as employees who decided to enroll in school are referred to as 

“employees who study,” while those who identified themselves as students working to meet 

expenses are referred to as “students who work.” 

Using data from the 1996/98 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 

(BPS:96/98), Hudson and Hurst (2002) examined how employees who study differed from 

students who work in their rates of persistence and attainment as of spring 1998 among all 

beginning undergraduates. They argued that because employees who study were more likely than 

students who work to have greater work responsibilities and to have student background 

characteristics associated with lower persistence and attainment, the former group was more 

likely to have left postsecondary education without a degree and less likely to be still enrolled in 

spring 1998. When these authors considered students’ degree goals, the differences in persistence 

rates were observed for those intending to complete an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, but not 

for those seeking a certificate. 

Although Hudson and Hurst (2002) examined the differences in 3-year rates of persistence 

among all beginning students in 1995–96, this report focuses on adult beginning students, 

analyzing the differences in 6-year rates of persistence between employees who study and 

students who work. Because many older undergraduates attend classes part time, it may take 

them longer to finish a degree program. Therefore, it is important to have a longer time frame in 

which to analyze rates of degree attainment. This study also provides a detailed account of older 

students’ use of financial aid. 
Introduction 

3 

The analysis addresses the following questions regarding undergraduates age 24 or older 

(referred to in this report as “working adult undergraduates”): 

• How do the demographic characteristics of students who identify themselves as 

employees who study differ from those who identify themselves as students who 

work? 

• How do the employment and attendance patterns of these two groups of students 

differ? How do employees who study and students who work differ in where they 

enroll and what they study? 

• How do employees who study differ from students who work in their reliance on 

financial aid? 

• How successful are the two groups in completing their postsecondary programs of 

study? 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5 

Data 

The statistical analysis presented in this report used data from the 1999–2000 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) and from the 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01). As a nationally representative sample of students in 

postsecondary education, NPSAS provides information on students’ demographic characteristics 

and educational experiences. It also provides detailed data on how students finance their 

postsecondary education and on the extent to which they work while enrolled. 

BPS:96/01 is a representative sample of students who first began their postsecondary 

education in the 1995–96 academic year. These students were reinterviewed in 1998 and 2001. 

Because BPS gathered information on students’ postsecondary education experiences over time, 

the survey enables analyses of students’ rates of persistence and degree attainment. BPS data 

were used for this purpose in the analysis conducted for this report. 

The NPSAS and BPS samples were limited to undergraduates age 24 or older. For ease of 

presentation, students 24 or older who worked while enrolled are often referred to as “working 

adults” in this report. Age 24 was selected to identify adult undergraduates because this is the age 

that students are recognized as financially independent of their parents according to financial aid 

regulations. The analysis provides a comparison of two groups of working adults: 1) students 

who consider themselves primarily employees who are also enrolled in postsecondary education 

(employees who study) and 2) students who consider themselves primarily students who work to 

pay their education expenses (students who work). The NPSAS analysis focuses entirely on 

working undergraduates, however the totals presented in the tables include the 18 percent of 

nonworking adult undergraduates. The BPS sample is also limited to students age 24 or older. 

The analysis sample includes only those who worked while enrolled in 1995–96 (i.e., they were 

working while enrolled in their first term), regardless of their working status in subsequent years. 

Among NPSAS undergraduates who were age 24 or older, 56 percent characterized 

themselves as employees who study, and 26 percent identified themselves as students who work; 

the remaining 18 percent did not work while enrolled (figure 1). Looking only at working adults, 

about two-thirds of these undergraduates characterized themselves as employees who study, and 

one-third as students who work. 
Data

6 

Figure 1. Percentage of 1999–2000 undergraduates and 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who 

Figure 2. were age 24 or older, and among these older undergraduates, the percentage distribution by 

Figure 2. reported student/employee role

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) and 1995/96 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

24 or older

43

Not 

working

Employees 

who study

Students 

who work

26

18

56

24 or older

20

Not 

working

Employees 

who study

Students 

who work

34

22

43

1999–2000 undergraduates

1995–96 beginning postsecondary students

The sample of BPS:96/01 students—those who enrolled in postsecondary education for the 

first time in 1995–96—is by definition younger than the NPSAS sample because the BPS survey 

does not include returning students (i.e., those who started postsecondary education at an earlier 

time and returned later). Thus, as shown in figure 1, one-fifth of BPS students were age 24 and 

older, and among these older students, 43 percent were employees who study, 22 percent were 

students who work, and the remaining 34 percent were not working when they first enrolled. The 

sample size of BPS working adults limits the detail by which students can be compared. 
7 

Profile of Working Adult Undergraduates 

This section examines the differences between employees who study and students who 

work in relation to demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Additionally, in cases where 

patterns differed among the three age groups examined in this study (24–29, 30–39, and 40 or 

older), these findings are also noted.2 Examining the characteristics of working adult 

undergraduates offers insights into the differences between the postsecondary experiences of 

employees who study and students who work. For example, demographic characteristics such as 

family responsibilities and student income will be related to students’ enrollment patterns and 

how they pay for their education. 

Age, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity 

The age distributions for employees who study and students who work are illustrated in 

figure 2. Employees who study were older, on average, than students who work (average age 36 

vs. 30). Also, with each successive age group, older undergraduates were more likely to consider 

themselves employees who study. For example, 43 percent of students in their 20s identified 

themselves as employees who study, compared with 62 percent of students in their 30s and 68 

percent of those age 40 or older. 

Looking at the gender distribution among all older undergraduates, more than half (58 

percent) were women (table 1). The percentage of women was higher among older 

undergraduates than among those in their 20s: about 62 percent of students in their 30s or 40s 

and older were women, compared with roughly half (53 percent) of students in their 20s. 

Comparing students who work and employees who study within age groups, differences were 

evident among students in their 30s or 40s by gender: students who work were more likely than 

employees who study to be women. 

Employees who study and students who work also differed by race/ethnicity. Among 

working undergraduates, employees who study were more likely than students who work to be 

White (70 percent vs. 60 percent) and were less likely to be either Hispanic (10 percent vs. 14 

 

2Additional supplementary tables that show working adult undergraduates by gender and age are included in appendix C. 
Profile of Working Adult Undergraduates

8

Figure 2. Percentage distribution by age and the average age for undergraduates age 24 or older,

Figure 2. by student/employee role: 1999–2000

1

The bars do not add to 100 percent because students who were not working while enrolled are not shown.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Age1

56

43

62 68

26

41

20 12

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total 24–29 years 30–39 years 40 years or older

Percent

Employees who study Students who work

Employees who study

(56 percent)

34 31

35

Students who work

(26 percent)

12

62

25 24–29 years

30–39 years

40 years or older

Average age = 36 Average age = 30

percent) or Asian (3 percent vs. 5 percent). Looking at racial/ethnic differences by age,

employees who study in their 40s or older were more likely than those in their 20s or 30s to be

White (74 percent vs. 68 and 66 percent, respectively).
Profile of Working Adult Undergraduates 

9 

Table 1. Percentage distribution of gender and race/ethnicity for undergraduates age 24 or older,

Table 1. by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000

American

White, Black, Indian/ Pacific

 not not Alaska Islander/

Male Female Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Asian Native Hawaiian Other1

 Total 41.6 58.4 65.4 13.9 11.4 4.3 1.1 0.7 3.2

Students who work 43.6 56.4 60.1 15.3 13.7 5.1 1.0 1.0 3.9

Employees who study 43.8 56.2 69.6 13.7 9.9 2.6 1.0 0.6 2.8

 All students 24–29 47.1 52.9 61.2 13.5 13.9 6.2 1.2 0.6 3.4

Students who work 49.4 50.6 60.3 13.1 15.0 6.2 1.0 1.0 3.5

Employees who study 48.5 51.5 66.1 13.5 12.4 3.5 1.2 0.3 3.0

 All students 30–39 39.0 61.1 64.7 15.3 10.9 3.6 0.8 1.1 3.7

Students who work 34.8 65.2 59.1 18.6 12.5 2.9 0.9 1.4 4.5

Employees who study 44.6 55.4 68.2 14.5 9.6 2.6 0.8 0.8 3.4

 All students 40 or older 37.1 62.9 71.9 13.0 8.4 2.5 1.1 0.5 2.6

Students who work 32.4 67.7 60.7 19.6 9.9 4.1 0.9 0.1 4.8

Employees who study 38.7 61.3 74.0 13.0 7.8 1.7 1.0 0.6 1.9

1

Includes those who reported race other than those shown in columns and those who reported more than one race.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did not 

work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:2000).

30–39 years

40 years or older

Gender

Race/ethnicity

24–29 years

Total

Parents’ Educational Attainment 

Previous studies examining factors related to college attendance have found that parents’ 

educational attainment is related to students’ transition into college and the progress they make 

while enrolled (Choy 2001). Table 2 summarizes parents’ highest level of education achieved for 

older undergraduates, illustrating differences between employees who study and students who 

work. Employees who study tended to have less educated parents than students who work. In 

particular, they were less likely to have a parent with a bachelor’s degree or higher (26 percent 

vs. 35 percent) and were more likely to have a parent with no more than a high school education 

(53 percent vs. 43 percent). Differences between employees who study and students who work 
Profile of Working Adult Undergraduates

10 

Table 2. Percentage distribution of parents’ highest education levels for undergraduates age 24 or older, 

Table 2. by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000

Some

High school postsecondary Bachelor’s degree

or less education or higher

 Total 50.1 20.9 29.0

Students who work 43.3 21.9 34.8

Employees who study 52.7 21.4 25.9

 All students 24–29 39.7 24.4 35.9

Students who work 36.8 23.4 39.8

Employees who study 42.5 25.8 31.7

 All students 30–39 52.7 20.0 27.3

Students who work 50.4 19.3 30.3

Employees who study 52.9 21.0 26.0

 All students 40 or older 62.0 16.9 21.1

Students who work 61.8 19.7 18.5

Employees who study 61.5 17.8 20.7

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

40 years or older

Parents’ highest education level

Total

24–29 years

30–39 years

with respect to parents’ educational attainment were also evident among students in their 20s and 

30s, but not detected for students in their 40s. 

For both students who work and employees who study, students age 40 or older were less 

likely than students in their 20s or 30s to have a parent with a bachelor’s degree or higher. In 

addition, with each successive age group, the educational attainment of parents declined. 

Income Level 

Because most undergraduates age 24 or older are financially independent of their parents, 

the reported incomes of these undergraduates reflect their own income, as well as their spouse’s 

income if they are married. An examination of working adults with respect to income level 

suggests that because employees who study were more likely to be employed full time than 
Profile of Working Adult Undergraduates 

11 

students who work, employees who study reported higher incomes than students who work 

($46,000 vs. $22,000) (table 3). Employees who study were more likely than students who work 

to be in the highest income quartile (39 percent vs. 11 percent) and less likely to be in the lowest 

quartile (7 percent vs. 36 percent). Similar patterns were observed for each age group of working 

adults. In addition, among employees who study, income increased with each successive age 

group. 

Marital Status and Number of Dependents 

Marital status and number of dependents are taken into account when determining older 

students’ eligibility for financial aid and the amount of aid they can receive (Berkner, Horn, and 

Clune 2000). In addition, previous research has shown that having dependents other than a 

spouse is related to lower persistence and attainment rates, suggesting that greater family 

Table 3. Percentage distribution of income quartiles for undergraduates age 24 or older and their average

Table 2. income in 1998, by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000

Low Middle High

quartile quartiles quartile Average income

 Total 18.8 51.8 29.3 $38,136

Students who work 36.4 52.7 10.9 22,486

Employees who study 7.0 53.8 39.3 46,482

 All students 24–29 28.8 58.3 13.0 25,548

Students who work 41.0 53.3 5.7 18,196

Employees who study 12.1 67.4 20.5 33,926

 All students 30–39 13.9 51.7 34.4 42,064

Students who work 29.8 52.8 17.5 28,011

Employees who study 4.9 53.5 41.7 47,969

 All students 40 or older 10.6 43.1 46.3 51,222

Students who work 26.7 49.6 23.7 32,720

Employees who study 4.6 41.9 53.5 56,178

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Income quartiles

Total

24–29 years

30–39 years

40 years or older
Profile of Working Adult Undergraduates

12 

responsibilities may reduce the ability of older undergraduates to complete a degree or certificate 

program (Berkner, Cuccaro-Alamin, and McCormick 1996; Horn and Berktold 1998). Therefore, 

it is important to examine the extent to which the family responsibilities of employees who work 

differ from those of students who work. 

As shown in figure 3, about one-half (52 percent) of employees who study were married, 

compared with about one-third (31 percent) of students who work. The difference in marital 

status between employees who study and students who work was evident within all three age 

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of undergraduates age 24 or older according to marital status and number

Figure 3. of dependents other than spouse, by student/employee role: 1999–2000

1

Includes single, separated, divorced, or widowed.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Marital status

Number of dependents

Employees who study

48 52

Students who work

31

69

Married

Not married

Employees who study

39 43

18

Students who work

27

57

17

None

One

Two or more

1
Profile of Working Adult Undergraduates 

13 

groups (table 4). Overall, employees who study were also more likely than students who work to 

have dependents other than a spouse. However, when examining differences within age groups, 

this difference was observed only among undergraduates in their 20s: 39 percent of employees 

who study had dependents, compared with 30 percent of students who work (table 5). Among 

students in their 30s as well as those age 40 or older, roughly two-thirds of both employees who 

study and students who work had dependents. 

Table 4. Percentage of undergraduates age 24 or older according to their marital status, by student/

Table 3. employee role and age group: 1999–2000

Not married1 Married

 Total 53.3 46.7

Students who work 69.3 30.7

Employees who study 47.7 52.3

 All students 24–29 70.0 30.1

Students who work 78.7 21.3

Employees who study 63.6 36.4

 All students 30–39 46.2 53.8

Students who work 57.1 42.9

Employees who study 43.4 56.6

 All students 40 or older 38.2 61.8

Students who work 47.1 52.9

Employees who study 37.9 62.1

1

Includes single, separated, divorced, or widowed.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

40 years or older

Marital status

Total

24–29 years

30–39 years
Profile of Working Adult Undergraduates

14

Table 5. Percentage distribution of number of dependents other than spouse for undergraduates age 24 or 

Table 5. older and the average number of dependents, by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000

Average number

of dependents

None One 2 or more excluding spouse

 Total 46.3 17.6 36.2 1.1

Students who work 56.6 16.8 26.6 0.9

Employees who study 42.7 18.1 39.2 1.3

 All students 24–29 63.5 17.4 19.2 0.7

Students who work 70.3 15.5 14.2 0.5

Employees who study 61.4 19.3 19.3 0.7

 All students 30–39 31.8 18.5 49.8 1.5

Students who work 32.4 18.6 49.0 1.6

Employees who study 33.8 17.7 48.5 1.5

 All students 40 or older 38.7 16.8 44.5 1.4

Students who work 36.8 19.5 43.7 1.5

Employees who study 35.3 17.3 47.4 1.5

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

40 years or older

Number of dependents other than spouse

Total

24–29 years

30–39 years
15 

How Working Adults Combine Attendance and Employment 

Because employees who study have greater family responsibilities and tend to be older than 

students who work, it might be expected that they would have different employment and 

attendance patterns than students who work. In fact, how students combined work and 

postsecondary attendance was clearly associated with how they characterized their 

student/employee role. Employees who study were much more likely to work full time and attend 

classes part time, while students who work were more likely to do the opposite (figure 4). The 

following section examines patterns of attendance and work separately and in combination for 

these two groups of students. Attendance intensity was based on the duration of students’ 

enrollment. Students who attended exclusively full time or attended both full and part time were 

combined into the full-time group.3 Thus those who attended exclusively part time for the 

duration of their enrollment made up the part-time group. 

Enrollment Intensity 

Looking at all older undergraduates enrolled in 1999–2000, more than half (58 percent) 

attended postsecondary education on a part-time basis (table 6). Students who characterized 

themselves as employees who study were much more likely to attend part time than students who 

work (76 percent vs. 32 percent). In contrast, students who work attended full time more often 

than employees who study (68 percent vs. 24 percent). For employees who study, the percentage 

of those attending part time increased with each successive age group. For students who work, 

students in their 30s or 40s were more likely to attend part time than students in their 20s. 

 

 

3Previous research using NPSAS data reported that the student characteristics of undergraduates with mixed attendance patterns 

resembled those of undergraduates who attended exclusively full time (Cuccaro-Alamin and Choy 1998). 
How Working Adults Combine Attendance and Employment

16 

Figure 4. Percentage distribution of working undergraduates age 24 or older according to separate and 

Figure 4. combined work and attendance intensity, by student/employee role: 1999–2000

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and

part-time enrollment.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Attendance and employment status

Employment status

Attendance status

Employees who study

76

24

Students who work

68

32 Attend full time

Attend part time

Employees who study

87

13

Students who work

60

40 Work full time

Work part time

Employees who study

19

68

5 8

Students who work

46

18

22

14

Work full time,

attend part time

Work full time,

attend full time

Work part time,

attend full time

Work part time,

attend part time
How Working Adults Combine Attendance and Employment 

17 

Table 6. Percentage of undergraduates age 24 or older according to their attendance intensity, by student/

Table 4. employee role and age group: 1999–2000 

Full-time1 Part-time

 Total 42.3 57.7

Students who work 67.9 32.1

Employees who study 24.1 75.9

 All students 24–29 54.7 45.3

Students who work 71.1 28.9

Employees who study 32.0 68.1

 All students 30–39 40.1 60.0

Students who work 67.7 32.4

Employees who study 24.2 75.8

 All students 40 or older 27.4 72.6

Students who work 52.2 47.8

Employees who study 16.9 83.1

1

Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total

24–29 years

30–39 years

40 years or older

Work Intensity 

Among working adult undergraduates, a majority (59 percent) worked full time (35 or more 

hours) while enrolled (table 7). Compared with students who work, employees who study were 

much more likely to do so (87 percent vs. 40 percent). Examining the average number of hours 

worked per week while enrolled, employees who study worked an average of 41 hours, compared 

with 30 hours for students who work. These differences were observed for all age groups. 
How Working Adults Combine Attendance and Employment

18 

Table 7. Employment status of undergraduates age 24 or older during their postsecondary enrollment, by

Table 5. student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000 

Average

35 or hours per

1–15 16–20 21–34 more week Two or

hours hours hours hours worked One more

 Total 4.9 7.1 11.6 59.3 37.6 66.8 16.0

Students who work 13.6 20.1 26.4 39.9 29.7 71.2 28.8

Employees who study 1.8 3.0 8.1 87.1 41.5 85.1 14.9

 All students 24–29 6.2 8.7 16.5 53.6 35.7 64.3 20.6

Students who work 12.8 17.7 28.9 40.5 30.3 68.5 31.5

Employees who study 1.7 3.2 10.2 84.9 40.9 82.3 17.7

 All students 30–39 4.3 7.0 9.1 62.4 38.6 68.6 14.1

Students who work 14.0 24.1 23.1 38.8 28.9 75.7 24.3

Employees who study 1.5 3.2 7.1 88.2 42.0 85.4 14.6

 All students 40 or older 3.9 4.7 7.6 63.9 39.3 68.4 11.7

Students who work 16.5 24.0 20.7 38.8 28.6 75.5 24.6

Employees who study 2.3 2.7 7.2 87.8 41.4 87.3 12.7

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

40 years or older

Percentage with

number of jobs

Total

24–29 years

30–39 years

Percentage distribution of hours worked per week

Work and Attendance Intensity 

Table 8 illustrates how older undergraduates combined work and attendance and how the 

patterns differed between employees who study and students who work. As expected, employees 

who study were more likely than students who work to combine full-time work and part-time 

enrollment (68 percent vs. 18 percent) and were less likely to do the opposite (5 percent vs. 46 

percent). Employees who study were also less likely to work and attend part time (8 percent vs. 

14 percent). The same pattern was observed for each age group. 
How Working Adults Combine Attendance and Employment 

19 

Table 8. Percentage distribution of the enrollment and work intensity for undergraduates age 24 or older,

Table 8. by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000 

Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled

full time1 part time full time1 part time

 Total 19.9 51.9 18.1 10.1

Students who work 22.2 17.7 45.7 14.4

Employees who study 18.9 68.2 5.2 7.7

 All students 24–29 23.9 39.3 27.1 9.7

Students who work 23.5 17.0 47.6 11.8

Employees who study 24.3 60.6 7.7 7.4

 All students 30–39 20.3 55.3 14.8 9.6

Students who work 22.2 16.6 45.5 15.7

Employees who study 19.8 68.5 4.5 7.3

 All students 40 or older 13.5 66.6 8.6 11.3

Students who work 15.6 23.2 36.6 24.6

Employees who study 13.2 74.6 3.7 8.4

1

Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

30–39 years

40 years or older

Worked full time Worked part time

Total

24–29 years
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
21 

Institutions Attended, Degree Programs, and Fields of Study 

Previous studies have shown that older students give greater consideration to work and 

home life than do younger students when deciding where to attend college. Using the 1989–90 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Choy and Premo (1995) found that 

older students were more likely than younger students to report the following factors as very 

important in choosing the institution they attended: they could live at home; they could go to 

school while working; the institution was located close to home. 

The choices students make about where to attend college correspond to the attendance 

requirements of postsecondary institutions (Choy and Ottinger 1998). For example, most 4-year 

institutions encourage full-time attendance and schedule most of their classes during the day. 

Private for-profit institutions often require students to attend full time for the duration of the 

program, but the length of the program is relatively short, on average 1 year (Berkner, Horn, and 

Clune 2000). On the other hand, public 2-year institutions, also referred to as community 

colleges, provide a variety of options for students with family and work responsibilities, 

including part-time attendance, evening classes, and flexible programs. Enrollment differences 

between employees who study and students who work reflect differences in personal needs as 

well as program requirements. 

Where Students Enrolled 

In large part, because a majority of employees who study combined full-time employment 

and part-time attendance, they enrolled most often in public 2-year institutions, and they were 

more likely than students who work to do so (61 percent vs. 39 percent) (table 9). About threequarters of students who work, on the other hand, enrolled in either public 2-year institutions (39 

percent) or public 4-year institutions (34 percent); they were more likely than employees who 

study to attend public 4-year institutions (34 percent vs. 17 percent). Though a relatively small 

percentage of students enrolled in private for-profit institutions, employees who study were less 

likely to enroll in these institutions than students who work (5 percent vs. 8 percent). However, 

among full-time students, employees who study were more likely than students who work to do 

so (14 percent vs. 10 percent). In addition, full-time employees who study were more likely than 

students who work to attend private not-for-profit 4-year institutions (18 percent vs. 12 percent) 

and to attend more than one institution (12 percent vs. 9 percent). 
Institutions Attended, Degree Programs, and Fields of Study

22 

Table 9. Percentage distribution of institution attended for undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/

Table 7. employee role and attendance intensity: 1999–2000

More than

Private not- Private one institution

Public 4-year for-profit 4-year Public 2-year for-profit and other

 Total 22.5 10.3 53.9 6.5 6.9

Students who work 34.5 10.6 39.4 7.6 8.0

Employees who study 16.8 11.3 61.2 4.8 6.0

 All full-time students 27.7 12.8 36.8 12.6 10.0

Students who work 37.6 12.0 31.9 9.9 8.6

Employees who study 16.4 17.7 39.4 14.5 12.0

 All part-time students 18.6 8.5 66.4 2.0 4.5

Students who work 27.8 7.6 55.1 2.8 6.7

Employees who study 16.9 9.3 68.1 1.7 4.0

1

Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total

Full-time1

Part-time

Whether they attended full time or part time, employees who study attended public 2-year 

colleges more often than any other institution type, though a higher percentage of part-time 

students (68 percent) than full-time students (39 percent) did so. Among both full- and part-time 

students, employees who study were more likely than students who work to attend public 2-year 

institutions and less likely to attend public 4-year institutions. 

For students who work, whether they attended a public 4-year or 2-year institution varied 

with their attendance status: full-time students were more likely to attend public 4-year 

institutions (38 percent vs. 32 percent or less) and part-time students were more likely to attend 

public 2-year institutions (55 percent vs. 28 percent or less). 

Degree Program 

As shown in table 10, employees who study and students who work differed in the types of 

degree programs in which they were enrolled. Differences in degree programs reflect differences 

in the types of institutions students attend. Nearly half of employees who study (45 percent) were 
Institutions Attended, Degree Programs, and Fields of Study 

23 

Table 10. Percentage distribution of degree program for undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/

Table 10. employee role and attendance intensity: 1999–2000 

Associate’s Bachelor’s No undergraduate

Certificate degree degree degree1

 Total 21.6 41.7 29.1 7.6

Students who work 16.4 37.2 44.8 1.5

Employees who study 22.3 44.6 22.7 10.4

 All full-time students 20.7 36.7 41.1 1.5

Students who work 14.7 34.0 50.7 0.7

Employees who study 21.7 40.0 35.8 2.5

 All part-time students 22.3 45.4 20.4 12.0

Students who work 20.2 44.0 32.4 3.4

Employees who study 22.4 46.1 18.5 13.0

1

Includes programs that do not offer a formal award.

2

Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total

Full-time2

Part-time

enrolled in associate’s degree programs, and about one-quarter (23 percent) were in bachelor’s 

degree programs. In contrast, nearly half of students who work (45 percent) were in bachelor’s 

degree programs, while roughly one-third (37 percent) were in associate’s degree programs. In 

addition, a higher percentage of employees who study than students who work were in programs 

leading to vocational certificates (22 percent vs. 16 percent) or not working toward any degree 

(10 percent vs. 2 percent). 

Taking attendance status into consideration, similar patterns were observed among fulltime students in their rates of participation in degree programs: employees who study were more 

likely than students who work to be enrolled in associate’s degree programs (40 percent vs. 34 

percent) and certificate programs (22 percent vs. 15 percent) and were less likely to be enrolled in 

bachelor’s degree programs (36 percent vs. 51 percent). However, among part-time students, 

roughly half (46 and 44 percent) of both employees who study and students who work were 

enrolled in associate’s degree programs. 
Institutions Attended, Degree Programs, and Fields of Study

24 

For both groups of working adults, full-time students were more likely than part-time 

students to be enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs and were less likely to be in associate’s 

degree programs. For students who work, however, part-time students were more likely than their 

full-time counterparts to be enrolled in certificate programs (20 percent vs. 15 percent). This 

pattern was not detected for employees who study. Twenty-two percent of both full and part-time 

employees who study were in certificate programs. 

Fields of Study 

As shown in table 11, employees who study differed from students who work in their major 

field of study. They tended to major in vocational fields such as computer/information science 

(12 percent vs. 9 percent), business/management (24 percent vs. 17 percent), and vocational 

technical fields (8 percent vs. 5 percent). They were less likely than students who work to major 

in health fields (11 percent vs. 16 percent), however. Students who work were more likely than 

employees who study to major in academic fields such social/behavioral sciences (9 percent vs. 5 

percent) and life sciences (5 percent vs. 2 percent). 

Reasons Employees Who Study Enroll 

In the NPSAS:2000 survey, students who identified themselves as employees who study 

were asked to report their reasons for enrolling in postsecondary education. These reasons were 

grouped into four areas: gaining skills to advance in a current job or future career, completing a 

degree or certificate program, obtaining education required by a job, and personal enrichment or 

interest in the subject. Among employees who study, 85 percent reported that they were attending 

postsecondary education to gain skills to advance in their current job, 80 percent to complete a 

degree or certificate program, 36 percent to obtain education required by their job, and 89 percent 

to increase their personal enrichment or pursue an interest in the subject (table 12). 

Being enrolled in a degree program, as well as work and attendance status were related to 

whether or not employees who study were enrolled to gain skills to advance in their current job. 

Those who enrolled in a specific degree program were more likely than those who did not to 

report that they enrolled in postsecondary education to gain skills to advance in their current job. 

Also, employees who study who worked full time and attended full time were more likely than 

those who worked part time and enrolled part time to report that they wanted to gain skills to 

advance in their current job (89 percent vs. 79 percent). 

Also, among employees who study, those at public 2-year institutions were less likely than 

their peers at other types of postsecondary institutions to report that they enrolled to complete a 
Table 11. Percentage distribution of major field of study for undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/employee role and gen

Social/ Computer/ 

behavioral Life Physical information Business/ 

Humanities sciences sciences Sciences Math sciences Engineering Education Management He

 Total 14.1 6.6 3.3 0.8 0.4 11.6 5.9 8.5 20.6 1Students who work 13.8 8.7 5.3 1.0 0.5 9.4 5.5 8.7 17.2 1Employees who study 14.6 5.2 2.1 0.8 0.4 12.4 6.6 7.7 24.0 1 All males 13.3 5.4 4.4 1.3 0.5 16.6 12.4 4.1 17.4 Students who work 14.1 8.3 7.1 1.4 0.2 13.4 10.4 4.5 17.2 Employees who study 13.0 3.8 2.8 1.3 0.5 17.4 13.7 3.7 18.4  All females 14.7 7.4 2.5 0.5 0.4 8.1 1.3 11.7 23.0 1Students who work 13.5 9.1 3.8 0.6 0.7 6.2 1.7 12.1 17.2 2Employees who study 15.8 6.3 1.6 0.3 0.3 8.5 0.9 10.9 28.4 1

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did not work while enrolled.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total

Male

Female
Institutions Attended, Degree Programs, and Fields of Study

26 

Table 12. Among undergraduates age 24 or older who considered themselves employees who study, 

Table 10. percentage who reported important reasons for enrolling in postsecondary education, by selected 

Table 10. student and enrollment characteristics: 1999–2000

Gaining skills Completing a Obtaining Personal

to advance in degree or education enrichment

your current certificate required or interest

or future job program by your job in the subject

 Total 85.0 79.6 36.3 89.2

Gender

 Male 84.5 77.7 39.2 88.0

 Female 85.4 81.0 34.0 90.1

Age

 24–29 years 83.4 81.3 30.6 88.9

 30–39 years 88.2 82.3 35.8 88.6

 40 or older 83.2 75.2 41.7 90.2

Work and attendance intensity

 Worked full time

 Enrolled full time or mixed 89.2 89.2 34.1 87.6

 Enrolled part time or less 84.6 77.2 37.4 89.5

 Worked part time

 Enrolled full time or mixed 85.0 85.4 28.9 90.0

 Enrolled part time or less 78.9 72.1 36.5 90.8

Degree program

 No undergraduate degree 67.9 33.9 34.3 88.8

 Certificate 87.7 78.5 48.1 87.9

 Associate’s degree 86.3 83.5 31.7 90.7

 Bachelor’s degree 87.6 92.9 35.0 87.7

Type of institution

 Public 4-year 86.0 85.9 37.2 87.7

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 88.0 92.4 36.1 88.9

 Public 2-year 83.5 74.8 36.7 89.7

 Private for-profit 89.1 87.2 25.4 90.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

degree or a certificate program. Employees who study who were in bachelor’s degree programs 

were the most likely group to report that they enrolled to complete a degree or a certificate 

program. Employees who study in their 40s or older were more likely than their younger peers to 

report that they enrolled to obtain education required by their job. Among employees who study, 

those who were enrolled at private for-profit institutions were the least likely to report that their 

goal was to obtain education required by their job. 
27 

Financial Aid 

Students who are 24 years of age or older are defined as financially independent of their 

parents according to federal financial aid regulations. In determining financial aid eligibility, the 

amount that financially independent students are expected to pay toward their education is based 

on their own income, or that of their spouse if married. The amount that all students are expected 

to pay is calculated by a formula referred to as the “expected family contribution” (EFC). Among 

independent students, the EFC calculation differs between those with and without dependents. 

The EFC is subtracted from the estimated student budget (tuition and nontuition living expenses 

that a student pays to attend) to determine whether the student is eligible for need-based financial 

aid, and if so, how much. The student’s financial need is calculated as the difference between the 

EFC and the student budget. 

Pell Grants and Stafford student loans are the two major types of federal student aid that 

older undergraduates are eligible to receive. The Pell Grant, awarded primarily to low-income 

students with substantial financial need, provided a maximum of $3,125 to eligible students in 

1999–2000 (U.S. Department of Education 2000). Older students may also borrow to help pay 

for their postsecondary education through subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loan programs. 

While students must attend at least half time to be eligible for both Stafford loans, the federal 

government pays the interest for students who take out subsidized loans when they are enrolled, 

but not for those who take out unsubsidized loans. These two types of Stafford loan programs 

also differ in their eligibility requirements. The subsidized Stafford loan program requires 

students to demonstrate their financial need, whereas the unsubsidized program does not. 

If they qualify, older students can borrow both the maximum subsidized and unsubsidized 

amounts at the same time (Berkner et al. 2002).4 In 1999–2000, they could borrow up to $6,625 

in their first year, $7,500 in their second year, and $10,500 in their third year or higher. The 

following section examines in detail how older working adults finance their postsecondary 

education, distinguishing between employees who study and students who work. 

 

4If the independent student’s financial need exceeds the loan limit, the student can supplement the maximum subsidized amount 

with an unsubsidized amount (Berkner et al. 2002). 
Financial Aid

28 

Type of Aid 

Table 13 shows the percentage of older undergraduates who applied for financial aid in 

1999–2000. While about two-thirds (65 percent) applied for any type of aid, a smaller percentage 

applied for federal financial aid (39 percent). According to Choy and Premo (1995), among 

1989–90 older undergraduates who had never applied for financial aid, the two main reasons they 

gave for not doing so were either that they could pay for their postsecondary education, and 

therefore, may not have been eligible or that they did not want to incur any debt. 

In 1999–2000, employees who study were much less likely than students who work to 

apply for financial aid, especially among those applying for federal aid. About 59 percent of 

employees who study applied for any aid, compared with 78 percent of students who work. Onequarter (25 percent) of employees who study applied for federal financial aid, compared with 

nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of students who work. In part, these differences reflect the lower 

financial need of employees who study because of lower tuition expenses related to their parttime attendance. In addition, employees who study work full time more often than students who 

work and thus have higher incomes, which also reduces their eligibility for aid. 

Table 13. Percentage of undergraduates age 24 or older who applied for financial aid and who received

Table 11. various types of financial aid, by student/employee role and attendance intensity: 1999–2000

Applied for

Applied for federal Received Employer

 financial aid financial aid financial aid Grants Loans aid1

 Total 65.1 38.9 53.7 43.6 21.9 14.6

Students who work 78.0 61.6 66.5 53.2 40.3 4.5

Employees who study 59.3 25.0 48.2 39.8 12.3 23.5

 All full-time students 81.3 63.8 71.6 56.7 40.4 7.4

Students who work 85.4 72.6 76.7 62.0 50.5 3.1

Employees who study 78.1 51.9 67.4 50.0 31.6 16.2

 All part-time students 53.3 20.6 40.7 34.0 8.3 19.8

Students who work 62.4 38.6 45.0 34.8 18.7 7.5

Employees who study 53.3 16.4 42.1 36.5 6.2 25.8

1

Included in grants.

2

Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

NOTE: Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Type of aid

Total 

Full-time2 

Part-time 
Financial Aid 

29 

Reflecting in large part these differences in eligibility, employees who study were less 

likely than students who work to receive financial aid (48 percent vs. 67 percent), and among 

those who did receive aid, employees who study received smaller amounts of aid, on average 

($2,900 vs. $6,800) (table 14). The differences in aid receipt were also evident when examining 

the specific types of aid the undergraduates were awarded. As tables 13 and 14 illustrate, 

employees who study were less likely than students who work to receive grants (40 percent vs. 

53 percent), and among grant recipients, employees who study received smaller amounts, on 

average, than students who work ($1,500 vs. $2,900). 

Differences in the borrowing behavior of older undergraduates were also evident. Twelve 

percent of employees who study borrowed an average amount of $5,600, while 40 percent of 

students who work borrowed an average of $6,400. 

Employer financial aid was an important source of financial aid for employees who study. 

Employers provided financial aid to nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of employees who study, 

compared with 5 percent of students who work (table 13). Among those who received employer 

Table 14. Among undergraduate financial aid recipients age 24 or older, the average amount of aid received,

Table 12. by student/employee role and attendance intensity: 1999–2000

Type of aid

Total aid Grants Loans Employer aid1

 Total $4,646 $2,130 $6,118 $1,240

Students who work 6,795 2,869 6,397 1,449

Employees who study 2,904 1,488 5,578 1,204

 All full-time students 6,533 2,916 6,437 2,152

Students who work 7,646 3,215 6,581 1,699

Employees who study 5,109 2,417 6,173 2,414

 All part-time students 2,216 1,171 4,988 992

Students who work 3,738 1,567 5,351 1,231

Employees who study 1,785 1,084 4,614 961

1

Included in grants.

2

Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

NOTE: Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total

Full-time2

Part-time
Financial Aid

30 

aid, however, no difference was detected in the amounts awarded to employees who study and to 

students who work (table 14). 

When students’ attendance status was taken into account, most, but not all, of the 

differences in financial aid receipt remained between employees who study and students who 

work. Among both full- and part-time students, employees who study were less likely than 

students who work to borrow and were more likely to receive employer aid (table 13). However, 

the difference in grant aid receipt held only for full-time students (i.e., students who work were 

more likely to receive grants), while among part-time students, no difference was detected 

between the two groups in their likelihood of receiving grants. 

For both full- and part-time grant recipients, students who work received larger amounts of 

grant aid, on average, than employees who study. However, no difference in the average amount 

borrowed could be detected between students who work and employees who study among both 

full- and part-time students who borrowed. Finally, among full-time students, employees who 

study received larger amounts of employer aid, on average, than did students who work, but such 

a difference was not detected among part-time students. 

Source of Aid 

Undergraduates receive financial aid from three main sources—federal, state, and 

institutional (table 15). For both federal grants and loans, employees who study were less likely 

than students who work to receive such aid, and they received smaller amounts. Similarly, 

employees who study were less likely than students who work to receive state and institutional 

aid, and they also received smaller amounts, on average. 

How Employees Who Study Use Financial Aid 

As shown in table 16, the financial aid that employees who study received differed 

according to their degree program and institution attended. Two-thirds of those in bachelor’s 

degree programs received financial aid, compared with about half (48 percent) of those in 

associate’s degree programs and 40 percent in certificate programs. This difference in the 

likelihood of receiving financial aid was found for both part-time and full-time students. In 

addition, the amount of aid they received, whether the recipients were part-time or full-time 

students, was higher for those in bachelor’s degree programs than for those in any other degree 

program. 
Table 15. Percentage of undergraduates age 24 or older who received aid from various sources, and among those who received 

Table 15. amount received, by student/employee role and attendance intensity: 1999–2000

Percentage Amount Percentage Amount Percentage Amount Percentage Amount 

 Total 35.0 $5,214 22.7 $1,956 21.0 $5,754 10.3 $1,339 Students who wor

k 58.0 6,099 40.1 2,110 39.2 5,990 17.4 1,485 

Employees who study 22.0 4,061 11.5 1,534 11.4 5,312 6.0 1,063  All full-time students 59.6 5,953 40.7 2,196 39.2 5,993 18.6 1,503 Students who wor

k 69.5 6,604 48.5 2,290 49.2 6,156 22.0 1,588 

Employees who study 48.5 5,062 26.7 1,850 30.3 5,692 14.1 1,265  All part-time students 17.0 3,315 9.6 1,212 7.6 4,855 4.2 807 Students who wor

k 33.7 3,897 22.2 1,283 18.0 5,030 7.8 869 

Employees who study 13.6 2,925 6.7 1,134 5.5 4,645 3.5 801 

1Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

NOTE: Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2

Part-time

Full-time1

Total

Total federal aid Federal grants Federal loans State aid 
Table 16. Among undergraduates age 24 or older who considered themselves employees who study, percentage who received v

Table 14. amounts received among aid recipients, by degree program and type of institution and by attendance intensity: 1999

Percentage Amount Percentage Amount Percentage Amount 

Total

 Total 48.2 $2,904 39.8 $1,488 12.3 $5,577 Degree program

 No undergraduate degree 30.1 650 27.9 473 0.6 ‡  Certificate 40.2 2,523 34.5 1,185 9.8 5,216  Associate’s degree 47.6 2,215 38.9 1,226 9.6 4,774  Bachelor’s degree 65.6 4,593 52.0 2,322 25.6 6,280 Type of institution Public 4-year 53.8 3,318 44.2 1,627 18.2 5,228  Private not-for-profit 4-year 72.8 4,696 60.6 2,613 23.5 6,667  Public 2-year 38.7 1,251 33.9 873 3.6 3,319  Private for-profit 82.9 7,033 46.0 2,676 66.6 6,419 

Full-time1

 All full-time students 67.4 5,109 50.0 2,417 31.6 6,173 Degree program No undergraduate degree 28.0 ‡ 20.6 ‡ 2.5 ‡  Certificate 60.8 4,523 46.8 1,926 27.5 5,786  Associate’s degree 66.9 4,239 50.5 2,143 26.7 5,638  Bachelor’s degree 74.6 6,363 53.5 3,002 41.7 6,723 Type of institution Public 4-year 65.8 5,832 46.1 2,592 40.6 5,801  Private not-for-profit 4-year 82.6 6,308 66.9 3,271 36.8 6,940  Public 2-year 54.5 2,553 45.3 1,657 11.1 4,229  Private for-profit 87.9 7,539 50.1 2,802 71.4 6,833 

See notes at end of table.

Total aid Grants Loans 
Table 16. Among undergraduates age 24 or older who considered themselves employees who study, percentage who received v

Table 16. amounts received among aid recipients, by degree program and type of institution and by attendance intensity: 1999

Percentage Amount Percentage Amount Percentage Amount 

Part-time

 All part-time students 42.1 $1,785 36.5 $1,084 6.2 $4,614 Degree program

 No undergraduate degree 30.2 596 28.3 443 0.5 ‡  Certificate 33.8 1,416 30.8 838 4.3 4,100  Associate’s degree 42.3 1,335 35.8 869 4.9 3,468  Bachelor’s degree 60.1 3,245 51.1 1,886 15.8 5,565 Type of institution Public 4-year 50.1 2,295 43.6 1,311 11.2 4,586  Private not-for-profit 4-year 67.0 3,497 56.8 2,145 15.6 6,278  Public 2-year 35.8 887 31.9 668 2.2 2,463  Private for-profit 69.4 5,292 34.8 2,182 53.7 4,922 

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1Included in grants.2Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2

Total aid Grants Loans 
Financial Aid

34 

When taking degree program into account, similar patterns were observed in the specific 

types of financial aid that employees who study received. As shown in table 16, employees who 

study in bachelor’s degree programs were more likely than those in other degree programs to 

receive grants, loans, and employer aid, and to receive larger amounts, on average. When 

students’ attendance status was taken into account, however, there were a few exceptions to this 

pattern. For those attending full time, no differences could be detected in students’ likelihood of 

receiving grants according to the type of degree program except between those in bachelor’s 

degree and certificate programs (54 percent vs. 47 percent). 

The likelihood of receiving financial aid and the average amount received varied with the 

type of institution that the older undergraduates attended (table 16). Those who attended public 

sector institutions were less likely to receive aid and received lower amounts than those in the 

private sector. Across sector differences were also evident. Employees who study who attended 

private for-profit institutions were more likely to receive aid (83 percent vs. 73 percent) and to 

receive higher amounts ($7,000 vs. $4,700) than those in private not-for-profit 4-year 

institutions. Employees who study in public 4-year institutions were more likely to receive 

financial aid (54 percent vs. 39 percent) and to receive higher amounts than those in public 2-

year institutions ($3,300 vs. $1,300). The differences in aid received among employees who 

study between those in public 4-year and those in public 2-year institutions remained for both 

full-time and part-time students. 

For both full-time and part-time employees who study, those enrolled at private not-forprofit 4-year institutions were more likely than their peers enrolled at any other type of institution 

to receive grant aid and employer aid. On the other hand, employees who study at private forprofit institutions were the most likely group to take out loans, a pattern that also held for fulltime and part-time students. 
35 

Working and Studying Full Time 

While differences in work and attendance patterns were strongly associated with how 

students characterized their employee/student role, about one-fifth of each group combined fulltime work and full-time attendance (19 percent of employees who study and 22 percent of 

students who work) (see table 8). In total, these students represent about 9 percent of all 

undergraduates.5 Among these adult undergraduates who devote the maximum amount of time to 

both work and study, how do those who consider themselves employees who study differ from 

those who consider themselves students who work? 

With respect to demographic characteristics, the differences between the two groups are 

illustrated in table 17. As observed for all working adults, among those who both worked and 

attended full time, employees who study were more likely than students who work to be White, 

older, married, and parents. In addition, compared with students who work, employees who study 

were more likely to have a parent with no more than a high school education (52 percent vs. 45 

percent) and were less likely to have a parent with a bachelor’s degree or higher (24 percent vs. 

33 percent). Finally, employees who study were more likely to be in the highest income quartile 

than students who work. Thus, even when students who characterized themselves primarily as 

employees or as students devoted similar amounts of time to work and postsecondary attendance, 

differences in demographic characteristics remained. 

Looking at enrollment characteristics, the differences observed for all working adults 

changed somewhat when comparisons were made between the two groups who worked and 

attended full time. Among all working adults, employees who study were more likely than 

students who work to attend community colleges. Among those who worked and attended full 

time, however, roughly one-third of employees who study (37 percent) and students who work 

(34 percent) were enrolled at public 2-year institutions. Differences by sector, however, were 

evident among those enrolled at 4-year institutions: employees who study were more likely than 

students who work to attend private not-for-profit 4-year institutions (20 percent vs. 14 percent) 

and less likely to attend public 4-year institutions (15 percent vs. 30 percent). 

 

51999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000), Data Analysis System. 
Working and Studying Full Time

36 

Table 17. Among undergraduates age 24 or older who worked full time and attended full time, the

Table 17. percentage distribution (by columns) by selected student characteristics and student/employee 

Table 17. role: 1999–2000

Employees who study Students who work

 Total 100.0 100.0

Race/ethnicity

 White, not Hispanic 60.8 55.1

 Black, not Hispanic 19.2 17.4

 Hispanic 11.8 16.6

 Asian 3.8 3.9

 American Indian/Alaska Native 1.0 1.0

 Pacific Islander/Hawaiian 0.4 1.0

 Other 1.3 2.2

Age

 24–29 years 39.2 66.1

 30–39 years 37.1 25.1

 40 or older 23.8 8.9

Marital status

 Not married1 48.6 72.2

 Married 51.4 27.8

Number of dependents other than a spouse

 None 38.1 54.9

 One 21.5 19.0

 2 or more 40.4 26.1

Parents’ highest education level

 High school or less 52.0 44.9

 Some postsecondary education 24.3 22.0

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 23.7 33.1

Income quartiles

 Low quartile 8.0 26.1

 Middle quartiles 60.2 66.7

 High quartile 31.9 7.2

Type of institution

 Public 4-year 15.5 30.4

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 20.1 14.2

 Public 2-year 37.1 34.2

 Private for-profit 14.7 11.1

 More than one institution and other 12.6 10.1

Degree program

 No undergraduate degree2 2.5 0.6

 Certificate 20.1 14.7

 Associate’s degree 38.8 39.4

 Bachelor’s degree 38.6 45.3

1

Includes single, separated, divorced, or widowed.

2

Includes programs that do not offer a formal award.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:2000).
Working and Studying Full Time 

37 

As was found for all working undergraduates, among those who worked and attended full 

time, employees who study were more likely than students who work to be in programs leading 

to a vocational certificate (20 percent vs. 15 percent) and were less likely to be in bachelor’s 

degree programs (39 percent vs. 45 percent). However, no difference could be detected between 

employees who study and students who work in their likelihood of being enrolled in programs 

leading to an associate’s degree due in part to the fact that one-third of both groups attended 

community colleges. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
39 

Postsecondary Completion of Working Adult Undergraduates 

Previous research on persistence in postsecondary education determined that working full 

time and attending part time were independently related to lower rates of persistence and degree 

attainment (Berkner, Cuccaro-Alamin, and McCormick 1996; Horn 1996). In 1999–2000, about 

two-thirds (68 percent) of older undergraduates identified as employees who study reported both 

working full time and attending part time (table 8). In contrast, about one-fifth (18 percent) of 

students who work reported doing the same, while about one-half (46 percent) of students who 

work did the opposite (i.e., worked part time and attended full time). In addition, employees who 

study were more likely than students who work to have greater family responsibilities, which are 

also related to lower rates of postsecondary completion. Given these differences, it might be 

expected that employees who study would differ from students who work in their rates of 

completing postsecondary programs. 

Using data from the 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 

(BPS:96/01), the analysis presented below examines the differences in rates of persistence and 

degree completion between employees who study and students who work about 6 years after they 

first enrolled in postsecondary education. As previously discussed, about one-fifth of the BPS 

students were 24 or older, and among these older beginning students, 43 percent were employees 

who study, 22 percent were students who work, and the remaining one-third were not working 

when they had first enrolled (see figure 1). Thus, students who work make up a relatively small 

percentage (4 percent) of the total BPS sample. Therefore, while overall differences between 

students who work and employees who study were evident, it was difficult to determine 

subgroup differences within the two groups of working adults because of the size of the sample. 

Six-Year Persistence and Attainment Rates 

The degree attainment and 6-year persistence rates for undergraduates 24 or older who 

enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96 differed between the two 

groups of working adults. Employees who study were less likely than students who work to have 

completed a degree (31 percent vs. 44 percent) and were more likely to have left postsecondary 

education without any credential (62 percent vs. 39 percent) (table 18). When students’ 

attendance status was taken into account, it appeared as though employees who study attending 

full time had lower attainment rates than full-time students who work (41 percent vs. 55 percent); 
Postsecondary Completion of Working Adult Undergraduates

40 

Table 18. Percentage distribution of the 6-year persistence status and of highest degree attained in June 

Table 18. 2001 for 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students age 24 or older, by student/employee role

Table 16. and attendance status when they first enrolled

Highest degree attained

Attained Bachelor’s Associate’s

any degree degree degree Certificate Still enrolled Not enrolled

 Total 38.7 2.9 8.4 27.3 9.5 51.8

Students who work 44.3 9.3 12.2 22.9 17.1 38.6

Employees who study 30.7 1.2 5.8 23.7 7.8 61.6

 All full-time students 50.8 3.3 9.3 38.2 8.3 40.9

Students who work 54.7 7.1 16.3 31.3 9.4 35.9

Employees who study 40.8 2.5 4.3 34.0 7.5 51.6

 All part-time students 29.6 2.8 8.0 18.9 10.6 59.8

Students who work 32.1 12.2 7.2 12.7 27.3 40.6

Employees who study 27.4 0.8 6.3 20.2 7.9 64.7

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did 

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995/96 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:96/01).

No degree attained

Total

Attend part time

Attend full time

however, due to small sample sizes and large standard errors, the difference could not be 

confirmed statistically. Among those attending part time, on the other hand, no difference could 

be detected in degree attainment between employees who study and students who work. 

However, students who work were more likely than employees who study to be still enrolled part 

time in 2001 (27 percent vs. 8 percent). 

Looking at specific types of credentials, roughly one-quarter each of employees who study 

and students who work had completed a vocational certificate as their highest degree. Compared 

with students who work, employees who study were less likely to have attained a bachelor’s 

degree (1 percent vs. 9 percent). Although it also appears as though employees who study were 

less likely than students who work to attain an associate’s degree (6 percent vs. 12 percent), there 

was not enough statistical evidence to confirm such a difference. 

Persistence and Attainment by Degree Goal 

Employees who study and students who work differed according to the degree goals they 

reported when first enrolling in 1995–96 (figure 5). In the BPS sample, employees who study 
Postsecondary Completion of Working Adult Undergraduates

41

Figure 5. Percentage distribution by reported degree goal for 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students

Figure 5. age 24 or older, by student/employee role

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995/96 Beginning Postsecondary

Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Employees who study

34

14

24

28

Students who work

45

31

21

4

Associate’s degree

Certificate

None

Bachelor’s degree

reported having no degree goal more often than did students who work (23 percent vs. 4 percent).

Therefore, it is important to take students’ degree goals into consideration when examining their

completion rates. When doing so, differences in completion rates between employees who study

and students who work remained (table 19). Overall, among students with degree goals, 55

percent of employees who study had left their postsecondary program with no credential,

compared with 38 percent of students who work. Examining those with degree goals, a total of

37 percent of employees who study had obtained a credential, compared with 44 percent of

students who work. Employees who study with bachelor’s degree intentions were much less

likely than students who work to attain the degree within the 6-year time period of the study (8

percent vs. 34 percent). Among those with an associate’s degree goal, it appears as though

employees who study were more likely than students who work to have left postsecondary

education without earning a degree (63 percent vs. 38 percent), but this difference could not be

confirmed statistically due to small sample sizes. Among associate’s degree seekers, however,

the difference in the percentage still enrolled and working toward a degree could be confirmed (6

percent vs. 27 percent). Among those planning to obtain a certificate, no differences were

detected between the two groups of working undergraduates in terms of their completion or

persistence rates.
Postsecondary Completion of Working Adult Undergraduates

42 

Table 19. Percentage distribution of the 6-year persistence status and of highest degree attained in June

Table 17. 2001 for 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students age 24 or older, by student/employee role

Table 17. and degree goal when they first enrolled

Highest degree attained

Attained Bachelor’s Associate’s

any degree degree degree Certificate Still enrolled Not enrolled

 Total 43.2 3.7 9.2 30.3 10.3 46.6

Students who work 44.2 9.7 12.8 21.8 17.5 38.3

Employees who study 36.8 1.6 7.1 28.1 8.4 54.8

 All with bachelor’s goal 33.7 18.1 9.5 6.1 15.7 50.7

Students who work 51.1 34.1 11.2 5.9 16.6 32.4

Employees who study 26.7 8.2 9.4 9.1 19.6 53.6

 All with associate’s goal 31.0 1.7 16.6 12.8 15.4 53.6

Students who work 34.9 5.2 21.1 8.6 27.0 38.1

Employees who study 31.7 0.1 9.5 22.1 5.7 62.6

 All with certificate goal 57.4 # 2.6 54.7 3.8 38.8

Students who work 53.2 # 1.7 51.6 4.3 42.5

Employees who study 48.0 # 3.1 44.9 5.9 46.1

 All with no degree goal 21.5 # 6.2 15.2 5.9 72.6

Students who work ‡ ‡‡‡ ‡ ‡

Employees who study 11.3 # 1.5 9.8 5.6 83.1

#Rounds to zero.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995/96 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:96/01).

No degree goal

No degree attained

Bachelor’s degree goal

Associate’s degree goal

Certificate goal

Any degree goal

When Do They Leave? 

The first year of postsecondary education appears to be particularly hazardous for 

employees who study: 41 percent of students with intentions of completing a credential left and 

did not return within the 6-year time period (table 20). In contrast, 7 percent of students who 

work left in their first year. In the remaining years, no difference could be detected between the 
Postsecondary Completion of Working Adult Undergraduates 

43 

Table 20. Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students age 24 or older who completed a

Table 18. credential or were still enrolled in June 2001, and the percentage distribution of those who left,

Table 18. by year of departure as of June 2001, by degree goal and student/employee role when they first 

Table 18. enrolled

Attained any

degree or still Fourth year

enrolled in 2001 First year Second year Third year or later

 Total 48.2 30.2 9.2 5.2 7.3

Students who work 61.4 7.4 13.5 7.3 10.4

Employees who study 38.4 40.7 6.3 5.7 8.9

 All with degree goal 53.4 24.2 8.4 5.9 8.1

Students who work 61.7 7.4 12.9 7.0 10.9

Employees who study 45.2 31.9 6.7 7.2 9.1

NOTE: Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did not work while enrolled. Detail may not sum to

totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995/96 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:96/01).

Total

The year they left without return

Any degree goal

percentages of those leaving among employees who study and students who work.6 Even after 

excluding students with no degree goal, the difference in first-year attrition held: about one-third 

of employees who study left in their first year, compared with 7 percent of students who work. 

Characteristics of Employees Who Study by Rates of Postsecondary 

Persistence and Completion 

The results of the analysis on rates of persistence and degree completion demonstrate the 

relative difficulty employees who study have in completing their postsecondary education. To try 

and determine whether certain factors were related to their completion rates, characteristics 

related to persistence and attainment for all undergraduates were examined separately for 

employees who study. The results are shown in table 21. Unfortunately, when identifying 

subgroups, the BPS sample of adult employees who study is relatively small and the standard 

errors are large. Even though there appear to be large differences for some characteristics, the 

institution first attended, age, and students’ degree goals were the only comparisons that reached 

statistical significance. Specifically, among employees who study, those who began their 

postsecondary education at private for-profit private institutions were more likely to complete a 

 

6While it appears as though employees who study may have been less likely to leave in their second year of postsecondary 

education (6 percent vs. 13 percent), the difference could not be confirmed statistically. 
Postsecondary Completion of Working Adult Undergraduates

44 

Table 21. Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students age 24 or older who considered themselves

Table 21. employees who study, the percentage who attained any credential or were still enrolled in 2001,

Table 21. by selected student and enrollment characteristics

Attained any degree

or still enrolled in 2001

 Total 38.4

Age

 24–29 years 47.9

 30–39 years 38.2

 40 or older 22.9

Degree expected—first institution 1995–96

 No degree goal 16.9

 Degree goal 45.2

First month attendance status

 Full-time 47.5

 Part-time 37.6

First institution type

 Public 2-year 33.0

 Public 4-year 38.4

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 54.8

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 57.0

 Others 49.2

Employment status when first enrolled

 Part-time 48.9

 Full-time 36.3

Dependents in 1995–96

 None 43.0

 One or more dependents 36.8

Single parent in 1995–96

 Single parent 36.2

 Not a single parent 39.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995/96 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:96/01).

credential than those who began at community colleges, and those who began at an older age (40 

or older) were less likely to complete their studies than those who were in their mid- to late 20s.7

Finally, employees who study who had specific degree goals were more likely to complete a 

credential than those who reported no degree goals. 

 

7Because few bivariate differences were found among employees who work, a multivariate analysis is not shown. 
45 

Summary and Conclusions 

Older working undergraduates who identify their primary activity as work differ from 

those who identify their primary activity as attending school in how they combine employment 

and postsecondary attendance. In 1999–2000, among working undergraduates age 24 or older, 

employees who study most often combined full-time employment with part-time attendance, 

while students who work did the opposite—combined part-time employment with full-time 

attendance. 

In addition to the differences in their working and attendance patterns, employees who 

study also differed from students who work in several other ways. They were older, more likely 

to be married, and to have dependents. Moreover, employees who study were more likely to be 

White and to have a parent who had never attended college. Even among those who combined 

full-time work and full-time attendance, demographic differences between employees who study 

and students who work—in particular, age and family responsibilities—remained. 

Consistent with the differences in their work and attendance patterns, employees who 

study and students who work differed in where they enrolled in postsecondary education and 

what they studied. Employees who study were more likely to attend community colleges and to 

be enrolled in programs leading to a vocational certificate or an associate’s degree. They were 

also more likely than students who work to major in such occupational fields as business and 

computer science and were less likely to major in behavioral sciences. 

Taken together, the demographic, attendance, and employment profile of employees who 

study place them at greater risk than students who work of not completing their postsecondary 

programs. Indeed, examining a longitudinal cohort of older undergraduates who first began their 

postsecondary education in 1995–96 confirmed such outcomes. Nearly two-thirds of employees 

who study (62 percent) had not completed a credential and were no longer enrolled 6 years after 

they first began their postsecondary studies. In contrast, the same was found for 39 percent of 

students who work. While no difference in certificate attainment could be detected between the 

two groups, employees who study were much less likely to have earned a bachelor’s degree, even 

among those who intended to do so. The results suggest that full-time work and part-time 

attendance, in combination with family responsibilities, are barriers to completing a 

postsecondary credential, at least over the 6-year time period of this study. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
47 

References 

Berkner, L., Berker, A., Rooney, K., and Peter, K. (2002). Student Financing of Undergraduate 

Education: 1999–2000 (NCES 2002–167). U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Berkner, L.K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., and McCormick, A.C. (1996). Descriptive Summary of 

1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Five Years Later (NCES 96–155). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Berkner, L.K., Horn, L., and Clune, M. (2000). Descriptive Summary of 1995–96 Beginning 

Postsecondary Students: Three Years Later, With an Essay on Students Who Started at LessThan-4-Year Institutions (NCES 2000–154). U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Choy, S. (2001). Findings From The Condition of Education 2001: Students Whose Parents Did 

Not Go to College: Postsecondary Access, Persistence, and Attainment (NCES 2001–126). 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Choy, S., and Ottinger, C. (1998). Choosing a Postsecondary Institution (NCES 98–080). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Choy, S., and Premo, M. (1995). Profile of Older Undergraduates: 1989–90 (NCES 95–167). 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Creighton, S., and Hudson, L. (2002). Participation Trends and Patterns in Adult Education: 

1991 to 1999 (NCES 2002–119). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
References

48 

Cuccaro-Alamin, S., and Choy, S. (1998). Postsecondary Financing Strategies: How 

Undergraduates Combine Work, Borrowing, and Attendance (NCES 98–088). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Horn, L. (1996). Nontraditional Undergraduates, Trends in Enrollment From 1986 to 1992 and 

Persistence and Attainment Among 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students (NCES 97–

578). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Horn, L., and Berktold, J. (1998). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education 

Institutions: 1995–96, With an Essay on Undergraduates Who Work (NCES 98–084). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Horn, L., Peter, K., and Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary 

Institutions: 1999–2000 (NCES 2002–168). U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Hudson, L. and Hurst, D. (2002). The Persistence of Employees Who Pursue Postsecondary 

Study (NCES 2002–118). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center 

for Education Statistics. 

Leigh, D.E., and Gill, A.M. (1997). Labor Market Returns to Community Colleges: Evidence for 

Returning Adults. Journal of Human Resources, 32(2): 334–353. 

Phillippe, K.A., and Patton, M. (1999). National Profile of Community Colleges: Trends and 

Statistics. Washington, DC: Community College Press, American Association of Community 

Colleges. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Student Financial Aid Handbook: 1999–2000. 

Washington, DC: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of 

Education Statistics 2001 (NCES 2002–130). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 
49 

Appendix A—Glossary 

The glossary describes the variables used in this report. The variables were taken directly from the NPSAS:2000 and 

BPS:96/01 Data Analysis System (DAS), an NCES software application that generates tables from the NPSAS and 

BPS data. Appendix B contains a description of the DAS software. The glossary is divided into two parts: Part I 

describes the NPSAS data, and Part II describes the BPS data. In the index below, the variables are listed in the 

order they appear in the report. The glossary items are in alphabetical order by variable name. 

GLOSSARY INDEX

NPSAS VARIABLES

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Primary role (employee/student) while 

enrolled ........................................................SEROLE 

Gender ..........................................................GENDER 

Race/ethnicity .................................................. RACE2 

Age as of 12/31/99................................................AGE 

Parents’ highest education ............................NPARED 

Income percentile rank for all 

students ......................................................PCTALL2 

Marital status ............................................SMARITAL 

Number of dependents ............................... NDEPEND 

EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

Attendance status (full-time/part-time) ....ATTNPTRN 

Hours worked per week ............................... WKHRS2 

Number of jobs during NPSAS year 

1999–2000 ............................................NDNUMJOB 

Work and attendance intensity..................WORKATT 

ACADEMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Institution type .............................................SECTOR4 

Undergraduate degree program..................DEGFIRST 

Major field of study .................................... MAJORS3 

Gaining skills to advance in current 

job ..........................................................NDCAREER 

Completing a degree or certificate 

program..................................................NDDEGREE 

Obtaining education required by job......... NDADDED 

Personal enrichment................................. NDENRICH 

FINANCIAL AID

Applied for financial aid.................................AIDAPP 

Applied for federal aid................................... FEDAPP 

Total grants................................................... TOTGRT 

Total loans (excluding PLUS) ................... TOTLOAN 

Employer aid...........................................EMPLYAMT 

Total aid......................................................... TOTAID 

Total federal aid.........................................TFEDAID2 

Total federal grants.....................................TFEDGRT 

Total federal loans (excluding PLUS) ...........TFEDLN 

State aid total ...........................................STATEAMT 

Institutional aid total................................... INSTAMT 

BPS VARIABLES

Primary role (employee/student) while 

enrolled in 1995–96 ................................ SEROLEY1 

Student persistence in 2001 ...................... PRENRL2B 

Attendance intensity first term 

enrolled .....................................................ATTEND2 

Degree goal in 1995–96..............................DGEXPY1 

Year student left without return ................PRENYR2B 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

50 

NPSAS VARIABLES 

Age as of 12/31/99 AGE 

Indicates student’s age on 12/31/1999. 

Applied for financial aid AIDAPP 

Indicates whether the student applied for financial aid. It measures the percentage of students who applied for any 

aid. 

Attendance status (full-time/part-time) ATTNPTRN 

Indicates the student’s attendance status during all the months enrolled in 1999–2000. Full-time students include 

those who attended exclusively full time and those who attended both full and part time for the duration of their 

enrollment. Part-time students include those who attended exclusively part time for the duration of their enrollment. 

Undergraduate degree program DEGFIRST 

Degree program in which student enrolled in the first term, as reported by the institution. If not available from the 

institution, information was taken from the student interview. Refers to NPSAS institution for those enrolled in more 

than one institution. 

Certificate Student pursuing a certificate or formal award other than an 

associate’s or bachelor’s degree. 

Associate’s degree Student pursuing an associate’s degree. 

Bachelor’s degree Student pursuing a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science 

degree. 

No undergraduate degree Student is not in any of the above degree programs. 

Employer aid EMPLYAMT 

Indicates total amount of aid received from employers in 1999–2000. It includes tuition waivers for employees and 

dependents and employer-paid tuition reimbursements. The percentage of students with employer aid is the 

percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all 

students who received employer aid. 

Applied for federal aid FEDAPP 

Indicates whether the student applied for federal financial aid. It measures the percentage of students who applied for 

federal aid. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

51 

Gender GENDER 

Male 

Female 

Institutional aid total INSTAMT 

Indicates the total institutional aid amount received during 1999–2000. It includes all types of institutional grants and 

scholarships, institutional loans, institution-sponsored work-study, and all other institutional aid. The percentage of 

students with institutional aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount 

received is the average for all students who received institutional aid. 

Major field of study MAJORS3 

Undergraduate major field of study among those with declared majors. Refers to NPSAS institution for those 

enrolled in more than one institution. 

Humanities English, liberal arts, philosophy, theology, art, music, 

speech/drama, history/fine arts, area studies, African-American 

studies, ethnic studies, foreign languages, liberal studies, 

women’s studies. Social/behavioral sciences: Psychology, 

economics, political science, American civilization, clinical 

pastoral care, social work, anthropology/archaeology, history, 

sociology. 

Life sciences Natural resources, forestry, biological science (including 

zoology), biophysics, geography, interdisciplinary studies, 

including biopsychology environmental studies. 

Physical sciences Physical sciences including chemistry, physics. 

Math Mathematics, statistics. 

Computer/information science Computer/information science, computer programming. 

Engineering Electrical, chemical, mechanical, civil, or other engineering; 

engineering technology; electronics. 

Education Early childhood, elementary, secondary, special, or physical 

education; leisure studies; library/archival sciences. 

Business management Accounting, finance, secretarial, data processing, 

business/management, public administration, 

marketing/distribution, business support, intern relations. 

Health Nursing, nurse assisting, community/mental health, medicine, 

physical education/recreation, audiology, clinical health, 

dentistry, veterinary medicine, health/hospital, public health, 

dietetics, other/general health. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

52 

Major field of study—continued 

Vocational/technical Mechanic technology including transportation, protective 

services, construction, air/other transportation, precision 

production. 

Other professional or technical Agriculture, agricultural science, architecture, professional city 

planning, journalism, communications, communications 

technology, cosmetology, military science, dental/medical 

technology, home economics, vocational home economics 

including child care, law, basic/personal skills. 

Obtaining education required by job NDADDED 

Indicates students who enrolled in postsecondary education to obtain education required by their job. It is based on 

the student response to the question “Was the following an important consideration in your decision to go to school 

while you were working: Obtaining additional education that is required by your job?” This question only applies 

to students who considered themselves employees who study. 

Gaining skills to advance in current job NDCAREER 

Indicates students who enrolled in postsecondary education to gain skills to advance in their current job or for a new 

career. It is based on the student response to the question “Was the following an important consideration in your 

decision to go to school while you were working: Gaining skills to advance in your current job or for a new career?” 

This question only applies to students who considered themselves employees who study. 

Completing a degree or certificate program NDDEGREE 

Indicates students who enrolled in postsecondary education to complete a degree or certificate program. It is based 

on the student response to the question “Was the following an important consideration in your decision to go to 

school while you were working: Completing a degree or certificate program?” This question only applies to students 

who considered themselves employees who study. 

Personal enrichment NDENRICH 

Indicates students who enrolled in postsecondary education because of personal enrichment or interest in the subject. 

It is based on the student response to the question “Was the following an important consideration in your decision to 

go to school while you were working: Personal enrichment or interest in the subject?” This question only applies to 

students who considered themselves primarily employees who study. 

Number of dependents NDEPEND 

Number of dependents reported by the student not including a spouse. Dependents include any individuals, whether 

children or elders, for whom the student was financially responsible. 

Number of jobs during NPSAS year 1999–2000 NDNUMJOB 

Indicates number of jobs the student had while enrolled. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

53 

Parent’s highest education NPARED 

The highest level of education completed by the student’s mother or father, whoever had the highest level. In this 

report, the variable was aggregated to the following categories: 

High school diploma or less Students’ parent earned a high school diploma or equivalent or 

did not complete high school. 

Some postsecondary education Students’ parent attended some postsecondary education, but did 

not earn a bachelor’s degree. 

Bachelor’s degree or higher Students’ parent attained a bachelor’s or advanced degree 

Income percentile rank for all students PCTALL2 

Indicates 1998 income percentiles for all students (calculated separately for dependent and independent students). In 

this analysis, the percentiles were aggregated as follows: 

Low quartile Income at the 25th percentile or below. 

Middle quartiles Income between the 26th and 74th percentiles. 

High quartile Income at or above the 75th percentile. 

Race/ethnicity RACE2 

Indicates undergraduate’s race/ethnicity. The category “other” includes those who reported other race and those who 

reported more than one race. Hispanic includes all who reported being Hispanic, regardless of race. 

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, 

North Africa, or the Middle East. 

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of 

Africa. 

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. 

Asian A person having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. This includes people 

from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, India, and 

Vietnam. 

American Indian/Alaska Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North 

America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal 

affiliation or community recognition. 

Pacific Islander/Hawaiian A person having origins in the Pacific Islands including Hawaii 

and Samoa. 

Other A person having origins in race not listed above or who reported 

more than one race. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

54 

Institution type SECTOR4 

Indicates the combined level and control of the student’s institution. Institution level concerns the institution’s 

highest offering, and control (public/private) concerns the source of revenue and control of operations. 

Public 4-year (combined doctorate- and nondoctorate-granting) 

Private not-for-profit 4-year (combined doctorate- and nondoctorate-granting) 

Public 2-year (also called community colleges) 

Private for-profit (includes all levels: less-than-2-year, 2-year, and 4-year) 

More than one institution and other (student attended more than one institution simultaneously) 

Primary role (employee/student) while enrolled SEROLE 

Indicates student response to the question “While you were working, would you say that you were primarily a student 

working to meet expenses or an employee who has decided to enroll in school?” 

Student who works Student working to meet expenses. 

Employee who studies Employee enrolled in school. 

Does not work Respondent did not work while enrolled. 

In the tables, only students who work and employees who study were shown separately, but nonworking students are 

included in the totals. 

Marital status SMARITAL 

Indicates the marital status of the student when he or she applied for financial aid in 1999–2000. 

Not married (includes single, separated, divorced, and widowed) 

Married 

State aid total STATEAMT 

Indicates the total amount of state aid received by the student in 1999–2000. It includes state grants, state loans, 

state-sponsored work-study, and all other state financial aid. State grants include the LEAP portions funded by the 

federal government. At public institutions in some states, the distinction between state and institutional grant funds is 

not always clear because grants are funded by the state but are allocated by the institutions. The percentage of 

students with state aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount 

received is the average amount for all students who received state aid. 

Total federal aid TFEDAID2 

Indicates the total amount of federal financial aid received by the student in 1999–2000. It includes federal loans, 

federal grants, federal work-study, veteran’s benefits, or military education aid. The percentage of students with 

federal aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the 

average amount for all students who received federal aid. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

55 

Total federal grants TFEDGRT 

Indicates the total amount of federal grants received by the student in 1999–2000. It includes Pell Grants, 

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOGs), and a small number of Robert Byrd Scholarships. It does 

not include veteran’s benefits or military aid. The percentage of students with federal grants is the percentage with 

positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average amount for all students who 

received federal grants. 

 

Total federal loans (excluding PLUS) TFEDLN 

Indicates the total amount of federal loans, excluding PLUS loans to parents. It includes Perkins, Stafford, and 

federal loans through the Public Health Service received during 1999–2000. The percentage of students with federal 

loans is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average 

amount for all students who received federal loans. 

Total aid TOTAID 

Indicates the total amount of financial aid received by the student in 1999–2000. It includes grants, loans, workstudy, or any other type of aid, as well as loans to parents under the PLUS program, veterans benefits, and military 

education aid. The percentage of students with any aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this 

variable. The average amount received is the average amount for all students who received financial aid. 

Total grants TOTGRT 

Indicates the total amount of all grants and scholarships received by a student in 1999–2000. It includes all federal 

grants, state grants, institutional grants, and other grants that were not classified as federal, state, or institutional. It 

also includes employer tuition reimbursements and grants from private sources. The percentage of students with 

grants is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average 

amount for all students who received grants. 

Total loans (excluding PLUS) TOTLOAN 

Indicates the total amount of all loans to students in 1999–2000. This includes all student loans through federal, 

state, institutional, or private programs except PLUS loans (which are given to parents). It does not include loans 

from family and friends. The percentage of students with loans is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for 

this variable. The average amount received is the average for all students who received loans. 

Hours worked per week WKHRS2 

Indicates average number of hours that students worked per week while enrolled in 1999–2000. In this report, work 

intensity is aggregated to full time or part time as follows. 

Part-time Worked less than 35 hours per week. 

Full-time Worked 35 or more hours per week. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

56 

Work and attendance intensity WORKATT 

Indicates combined employment and attendance intensity. Full-time work is defined as 35 or more hours per week. 

Worked full time and enrolled full time 

Worked full time and enrolled part time 

Worked part time and enrolled full time 

Worked part time and enrolled full time 

BPS VARIABLES 

Degree goal in 1995–96 DGEXPY1 

Indicates highest degree expected at the first institution attended in 1995–96. 

None 

Certificate 

Associate’s degree 

Bachelor’s degree 

Attendance intensity first term enrolled ATTEND2

Indicates enrollment intensity first term enrolled. 

Full-time 

Part-time 

Student persistence in 2001 PRENRL2B 

Indicates the highest degree the student attained as of June 2001 or if student had not attained, whether the student 

was still enrolled in June 2001. 

Attained any degree 

Highest degree attained 

 Bachelor’s degree 

 Associate’s degree 

 Certificate 

No degree attained 

 Still enrolled 

 Not enrolled 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

57 

Year student left without return PRENYR2B 

For those who had not attained a degree, this variable indicates the academic year the student left postsecondary 

education and not returned by June 2001. Otherwise it indicates whether the student had attained a degree or was still 

enrolled by June 2001. 

Attained any degree or still enrolled in 2001 

The year students left without return 

 First year 

 Second year 

 Third year 

 Fourth year or later 

Primary role (employee/student) while enrolled in 1995–96 SEROLEY1 

Indicates student response to the question “While you were working, would you say that you were primarily a student 

working to meet expenses or an employee who has decided to enroll in school?” The role was determined when 

students first enrolled in the 1995–96 academic year. 

Student who works Student working to meet expenses. 

Employee who studies Employee enrolled in school. 

Does not work Respondent did not work while enrolled. 

In the tables in this report, only students who work and employees who study were shown. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
59 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

The 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

The 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) is a 

comprehensive nationwide study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for 

postsecondary education.8 It also describes demographic and other characteristics of students 

enrolled. The study is based on a nationally representative sample of all students in 

postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional 

students. For NPSAS:2000, information was obtained from more than 900 postsecondary 

institutions on approximately 50,000 undergraduates, 9,000 graduates, and 3,000 firstprofessional students. They represented about 16.5 million undergraduates, 2.4 million graduate 

students, and 300,000 first-professional students who were enrolled at some time between July 1, 

1999 and June 30, 2000 (the NPSAS year). 

The response rate for obtaining institutional record data for all students was 97 percent, and 

the weighted overall student interview response rate was 65.6 percent.9 Because the student 

telephone interview response rates for NPSAS:2000 were less than 70 percent in some 

institutional sectors, an analysis was conducted to determine if Computer Assisted Telephone 

Interview (CATI) estimates were significantly biased due to CATI nonresponse.10 Considerable 

information was known for CATI nonrespondents, and these data were used to analyze and 

reduce the bias. The distributions of several variables using the design-based, adjusted weights 

for study respondents (study weights) were found to be biased before CATI nonresponse 

adjustments. The CATI nonresponse and poststratification procedures, however, reduced the bias 

for these variables; the remaining relative bias ranged from 0 to 0.35 percent. This analysis was 

performed on variables where the true value is known for both respondents and nonrespondents. 

For other variables collected in the survey, where data are available only for respondents, it is not 

known whether the weight adjustments reduce or eliminate bias to the same extent. 

 

8For more information on the NPSAS survey, see U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

Methodology Report for the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NCES 2002–152) (Washington, DC: 2001). 

Additional information is also available at the NPSAS web site http://nces.ed.gov/npsas. 

9Ibid.

10For nonresponse bias analysis, see U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000), CATI Nonresponse Bias Analysis Report (NCES 2002–03) 

(Washington, DC: 2002), available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=200203.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

60 

The NPSAS:2000 Data Analysis System includes a sample weight for the CATI 

respondents. Because the information on students’ employee/student roles was based on CATI 

data, the NPSAS estimates and tables in this report used the CATI weight (CATIWT). 

The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01) 

The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) is based on a sample of 

students who were enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96 and 

participated in the 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96). The BPS 

study began with a sample of approximately 12,000 students who were identified in NPSAS:96 

as having entered postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96. Unlike other NCES 

longitudinal surveys (such as the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988), which follow 

age-specific cohorts of secondary school students, the BPS sample is more likely to include 

nontraditional students who have delayed their postsecondary education due to financial need or 

family responsibilities. 

The first follow-up of the BPS cohort (BPS:96/98) was conducted in 1998, approximately 3 

years after these students first enrolled. Approximately 10,300 of the students who first began in 

1995–96 were located and interviewed in the 1998 follow-up for an overall weighted response 

rate of 79.8 percent, which includes those who were nonrespondents in 1996. Among the 

NPSAS:96 respondents, the response rate was 85.9 percent.11 The second follow-up of the BPS 

cohort (BPS:96/01) was conducted in 2001, 6 years after the cohort had entered college. All 

respondents to the first follow-up, as well as a subsample of nonrespondents in 1998, were 

eligible to be interviewed. More than 9,100 students were located and interviewed. The weighted 

response rate was 83.6 percent overall, but was somewhat higher among respondents to both the 

1996 and the 1998 interviews (87.4 percent).12 

Nonresponse among cohort members causes bias in survey estimates when the outcomes of 

respondents and nonrespondents are shown to be different. A bias analysis was conducted of the 

2001 survey results to determine if any variables were significantly biased due to nonresponse.13

Considerable information was known from the 1996 and 1998 surveys about the nonrespondents 

to the 2001 interviews, and nonresponse bias could be estimated using variables with this known 

 

11For more information on the BPS:96/98 survey, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study First Follow-up 1996–98, Methodology Report (NCES 2000–

157) (Washington, DC: 2000). 

12For more information on the BPS:96/01 survey, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study:1996–2001 Methodology Report (NCES 2002–171) 

(Washington, DC: 2002). 

13Ibid. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

61 

information. Weight adjustments were applied to the BPS:96/01 sample to reduce any bias found 

due to unit nonresponse. After the weight adjustments, some variables were found to reflect zero 

bias, and for the remaining variables, the bias did not differ significantly from zero. This analysis 

was performed on variables found on the frame where the true value is known for both 

respondents and nonrespondents. For other variables collected in the survey, where data are 

available only for respondents, it is not known whether the weight adjustments completely 

eliminate bias. 

The BPS:96/01 Data Analysis System includes all of the variables from the BPS:96/98 

study and several sample weights for a cross-sectional analysis of the students in either 1995–96, 

1998, or 2001, as well as weights for the longitudinal analysis of students who responded in any 

two or in all three of the survey years. The BPS estimates and tables in this report used the 

longitudinal analysis weight B01LWT2 for about 9,000 sample students who responded in both 

the first (1996) and the last year (2001). 

Accuracy of Estimates 

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of 

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because 

observations are made only on samples of students, not entire populations. Nonsampling errors 

occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire populations. 

Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete 

information about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions 

refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous 

definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct 

information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, 

sampling, and imputing missing data. 

Item Response Rates 

Weighted item response rates were calculated for all variables used in this report. The 

weighted item response rates were calculated by dividing the final weighted number of valid 

responses by the weighted population for which the item was applicable. For both NPSAS:2000 

and BPS:96/01, all but four items had response rates over 90 percent. The remaining four were 

NPSAS variables with response rates between 85 percent and 90 percent (table B-1). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

62 

Table B-1. Variables with response rates between 85 percent and 90 percent

Variable name Variable label Item response rate

NDADDED Attend school-required (employee) 85.9

NDCAREER Attend school-advancement (employee) 85.7

NDDEGREE Attend school-degree (employee) 85.8

NDENRICH Attend school-enrichment (employee) 85.8

Data Analysis System 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NCES Data Analysis 

Systems (DAS) for the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000) 

and the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:96/01). 

The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and generate their own tables. With the 

DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented in this report; the table parameter 

files (tpf) that produced these tables are available to users on the NCES Web site. In addition to 

the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard errors14 and weighted sample sizes for 

these estimates. (For example, table B-2 contains standard errors that corresponds to table 8.) If 

the number of valid cases is too small to produce a reliable estimate (less than 30 cases), the 

DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate. 

In addition to tables, the DAS can also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to 

be used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the 

design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally 

compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors 

must be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the BPS:96/01 sample design. 

The DAS can be accessed electronically at www.nces.ed.gov/das. For more information 

about the NPSAS:2000 and BPS:96/01 Data Analysis Systems, contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street, NW 

Room 8115 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 502-7334 

Internet address: Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov 

 

14The BPS:96/01 samples are not simple random samples, and therefore simple random sample techniques for estimating 

sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and 

calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves 

approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor 

series method. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

63 

Table B-2. Standard errors for table 8: Percentage distribution of the enrollment and work intensity for

Table B-2. undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/employee role and age group: 1999–2000 

Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled

full time1 part time full time1 part time

 Total 0.61 0.84 0.54 0.45

Students who work 0.82 1.00 1.14 0.89

Employees who study 0.73 0.89 0.35 0.49

 All students 24–29 0.92 1.17 0.98 0.66

Students who work 1.10 1.10 1.34 0.99

Employees who study 1.29 1.62 0.80 0.90

 All students 30–39 0.92 1.22 0.69 0.67

Students who work 1.65 1.79 2.23 1.77

Employees who study 1.02 1.22 0.52 0.70

 All students 40 or older 0.85 1.19 0.63 0.79

Students who work 1.78 2.89 2.71 2.77

Employees who study 0.91 1.26 0.50 0.83

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

30–39 years

40 years or older

Worked full time Worked part time

Total

24–29 years

Statistical Procedures 

Differences Between Means 

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,15 or 

significance level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values 

for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with 

published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

 

15A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population 

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

64 

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− = (1) 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not 

independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula: 

 t =

E -E

se + se - 2(r)se se

1 2

1

2

2

2

1 2

 (2) 

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.16 This formula is used when comparing two 

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a 

subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used: 

 t =

2

sub

2

tot

2

sub

sub tot

se se 2p se

E E

+ −

− (3) 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.17 The estimates, standard 

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS. 

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons 

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages 

but also to the number of respondents in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a 

small difference compared across a large number of respondents would produce a large t statistic. 

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests is the possibility that one can report a “false 

positive” or Type I error. In the case of a t statistic, this false positive would result when a 

difference measured with a particular sample showed a statistically significant difference when 

there is no difference in the underlying population. Statistical tests are designed to control this 

type of error, denoted by alpha. The alpha level of .05 selected for findings in this report 

indicates that a difference of a certain magnitude or larger would be produced no more than 1 

time out of 20 when there was no actual difference in the quantities in the underlying population. 

When one tests hypotheses that show t values at the .05 level or smaller, one treats this finding as 

rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two quantities. However, 

there are other cases when exercising additional caution is warranted. When there are significant 

 

16U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 

17Ibid. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

65 

results not indicated by any hypothesis being tested or when one tests a large number of 

comparisons in a table, Type I errors cannot be ignored. For example, when making paired 

comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these 

comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. 

When the either of the two situations described in the previous paragraph was encountered 

in this analysis, comparisons were made only when p< .05/k for a particular pairwise comparison, 

where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that the 

individual comparison would have p< .05 and that for k comparisons within a family of possible 

comparisons, the significance level for all the comparisons will sum to p< .05.18

For example, in a comparison of males and females, only one comparison is possible 

(males vs. females). In this family, k=1, and the comparison can be evaluated without adjusting 

the significance level. When students are divided into five age categories (18 or younger, 19, 20–

23, 24–29, 30 or older) and all possible comparisons are made, then k=10 and the significance 

level of each test must be p< .05/10, or p< .005. The formula for calculating family size (k) is as 

follows: 

k j j = ( ) −1

2 (4) 

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of age, there are five 

age groups, so substituting 5 for j in equation 4, results in the following family size. 

10

2

5(5 1) = − k = (5) 

 

18The standard that p≤ .05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the 

comparisons should sum to p≤ .05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p≤ .05/k for a particular family size 

and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical 

Association 56 (1961): 52–64. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
67 

Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

Additional tables by gender and age. 
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

68 

Table C-1. Percentage of undergraduates age 24 or older according to their attendance intensity,

Table C-1. by student/employee role, gender, and age group: 1999–2000 

Full time1 Part-time Full time1 Part-time

Total

 Total 43.0 57.0 41.8 58.2

Students who work 70.6 29.4 65.8 34.2

Employees who study 24.4 75.6 23.9 76.2

24–29 years

 All students 24–29 56.3 43.7 53.3 46.7

Students who work 73.2 26.8 69.1 30.9

Employees who study 33.3 66.7 30.7 69.3

30–39 years

 All students 30–39 37.6 62.4 41.6 58.4

Students who work 69.9 30.1 66.4 33.6

Employees who study 23.9 76.2 24.5 75.5

40 years or older

 All students 40 or older 25.7 74.3 28.4 71.6

Students who work 52.0 48.0 52.3 47.7

Employees who study 15.2 84.9 18.1 82.0

1

Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Male Female
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

69 

Table C-2. Employment status of undergraduates age 24 or older during their postsecondary enrollment,

Table C-2. by student/employee role, gender, and age group: 1999–2000

Average

1–15 16–20 21–34 35 or more hours per Two or

hours hours hours hours week worked One more

 Total 4.0 6.4 10.7 66.0 39.6 69.7 17.3

Students who work 11.4 18.1 27.6 42.9 30.8 69.3 30.7

Employees who study 0.8 2.4 5.0 91.9 43.9 85.0 15.0

 All students 24–29 6.1 8.2 16.8 57.7 36.7 66.7 21.8

Students who work 12.0 15.8 29.1 43.1 30.9 67.9 32.1

Employees who study 1.0 3.0 9.0 87.0 42.4 82.3 17.7

 All students 30–39 2.4 5.6 7.0 74.9 42.1 73.8 15.8

Students who work 9.1 20.3 25.0 45.6 31.2 71.2 28.8

Employees who study 0.5 2.5 3.3 93.7 45.0 85.3 14.7

 All students 40 or older 2.3 4.3 4.3 70.3 41.8 69.9 11.1

Students who work 11.5 30.7 22.1 35.7 28.8 75.6 24.4

Employees who study 0.8 1.6 2.5 95.2 44.1 87.6 12.4

 Total 5.6 7.5 12.2 54.6 36.1 64.8 15.1

Students who work 15.3 21.7 25.5 37.6 28.9 72.7 27.3

Employees who study 2.6 3.6 10.5 83.3 39.6 85.2 14.8

 All students 24–29 6.4 9.2 16.2 50.0 34.8 62.2 19.6

Students who work 13.6 19.6 28.8 38.1 29.7 69.2 30.9

Employees who study 2.3 3.4 11.4 82.9 39.5 82.4 17.6

 All students 30–39 5.5 7.9 10.5 54.5 36.1 65.2 13.1

Students who work 16.7 26.1 22.1 35.2 27.7 78.1 21.9

Employees who study 2.3 3.8 10.1 83.8 39.6 85.4 14.6

 All students 40 or older 4.9 5.0 9.5 60.0 37.8 67.6 12.0

Students who work 18.9 20.7 20.0 40.3 28.4 75.4 24.6

Employees who study 3.2 3.4 10.2 83.2 39.8 87.2 12.9

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Percentage distribution

40 years or older

of hours worked per week Number of jobs

Total

40 years or older

30–39 years

24–29 years

Male

Female

Total

24–29 years

30–39 years
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

70 

Table C-3. Percentage distribution of the enrollment and work intensity of undergraduates age 24 or older,

Table C-3. by student/employee role, gender, and age group: 1999–2000 

Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled

full time1 part time full time1 part time

Male

Total

 Total 21.7 54.4 17.4 6.5

Students who work 25.3 17.6 45.3 11.8

Employees who study 20.2 71.7 4.3 3.9

24–29 years

 All students 24–29 25.3 39.9 27.6 7.2

Students who work 25.8 17.3 47.5 9.5

Employees who study 25.0 62.0 8.2 4.8

30–39 years

 All students 30–39 22.5 61.1 11.0 5.3

Students who work 27.2 18.4 42.7 11.7

Employees who study 21.2 72.4 2.6 3.7

40 years or older

 All students 40 or older 13.8 73.4 6.0 6.9

Students who work 17.2 18.5 34.9 29.5

Employees who study 13.4 81.8 1.8 3.1

Female

Total

 Total 18.5 50.0 18.7 12.9

Students who work 19.8 17.8 46.0 16.4

Employees who study 17.9 65.4 5.9 10.8

24–29 years

 All students 24–29 22.6 38.7 26.7 12.1

Students who work 21.3 16.8 47.8 14.1

Employees who study 23.6 59.3 7.1 10.0

30–39 years

 All students 30–39 18.7 51.1 17.5 12.7

Students who work 19.5 15.7 47.0 17.9

Employees who study 18.6 65.2 5.9 10.2

40 years or older

 All students 40 or older 13.3 62.6 10.2 14.0

Students who work 14.9 25.5 37.5 22.2

Employees who study 13.1 70.1 5.0 11.8

1

Based on full-year attendance. Full-time attendance includes those who also had mixed full-time and part-time enrollment.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did not

work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:2000).

Worked full time Worked part time
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

71 

Table C-4. Percentage distribution of institution attended for undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/

Table C-4. employee role and age group: 1999–2000 

More than

Private not- Private one institution

Public 4-year for-profit 4-year Public 2-year for-profit and other

 Total 22.5 10.3 53.9 6.5 6.9

Students who work 34.5 10.6 39.4 7.6 8.0

Employees who study 16.8 11.3 61.2 4.8 6.0

 All students 24–29 29.3 9.5 45.6 8.2 7.4

Students who work 40.8 10.6 33.4 7.6 7.7

Employees who study 19.0 9.0 58.3 7.1 6.6

 All students 30–39 19.4 11.0 56.5 6.3 6.7

Students who work 24.9 11.2 48.5 7.9 7.5

Employees who study 16.6 12.0 61.2 4.4 5.8

 All students 40 or older 16.4 10.8 62.4 4.2 6.2

Students who work 22.1 9.7 50.8 7.1 10.4

Employees who study 14.9 12.7 63.8 3.1 5.5

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total

24–29 years

30–39 years

40 years or older
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

72 

Table C-5. Percentage distribution of institution attended for undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/

Table C-5. employee role, attendance intensity, and gender: 1999–2000

More than

Private not- Private one institution

Public 4-year for-profit 4-year Public 2-year for-profit and other

 Total 24.1 9.9 52.7 6.6 6.7

Students who work 40.2 10.4 35.6 6.9 7.0

Employees who study 16.8 10.5 61.3 5.4 6.1

 All full-time students 31.3 13.2 33.6 12.6 9.4

Students who work 44.2 12.1 27.4 8.6 7.7

Employees who study 16.6 18.2 37.4 16.7 11.1

 All part-time students 18.7 7.5 67.1 2.0 4.8

Students who work 30.6 6.2 55.0 2.8 5.4

Employees who study 16.8 8.0 69.0 1.7 4.5

 Total 21.3 10.6 54.7 6.4 6.9

Students who work 30.0 10.8 42.3 8.2 8.7

Employees who study 16.8 12.0 61.1 4.3 5.9

 All full-time students 25.1 12.5 39.2 12.6 10.5

Students who work 32.2 11.9 35.6 11.1 9.3

Employees who study 16.3 17.2 41.1 12.7 12.7

 All part-time students 18.6 9.3 65.9 2.0 4.4

Students who work 25.9 8.6 55.2 2.7 7.6

Employees who study 16.9 10.3 67.4 1.7 3.7

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Part-time

Male

Female

Total

Full-time

Total

Full-time

Part-time
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables 

73 

Table C-6. Percentage distribution by degree program for undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/

Table C-6. employee role and age group: 1999–2000 

Associate’s Bachelor’s No undergraduate

Certificate degree degree degree1

 Total 21.6 41.7 29.1 7.6

Students who work 16.4 37.2 44.8 1.5

Employees who study 22.3 44.6 22.7 10.4

 All students 24–29 16.9 41.8 36.8 4.6

Students who work 13.1 34.1 51.7 1.0

Employees who study 19.7 48.7 23.4 8.1

 All students 30–39 23.0 44.3 26.2 6.4

Students who work 20.0 45.1 33.8 1.1

Employees who study 21.4 46.5 23.5 8.6

 All students 40 or older 26.7 38.6 21.7 13.0

Students who work 25.6 36.8 32.7 4.9

Employees who study 25.4 39.1 21.2 14.4

1

Includes programs that do not offer a formal award.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total

24–29 years

30–39 years

40 years or older
Appendix C—Supplementary Tables

74

Table C-7. Percentage distribution by degree program for undergraduates age 24 or older, by student/

Table C-7. employee role, attendance intensity, and gender: 1999–2000 

Associate’s Bachelor’s No undergraduate

Certificate degree degree degree1

 Total 22.7 38.8 31.0 7.5

Students who work 15.6 32.7 50.5 1.2

Employees who study 24.5 42.9 22.2 10.5

 All full-time students 19.6 33.5 45.4 1.5

Students who work 13.6 29.2 56.6 0.6

Employees who study 22.1 38.9 36.6 2.5

 All part-time students 25.0 42.8 20.2 12.0

Students who work 20.3 41.1 35.9 2.6

Employees who study 25.3 44.1 17.5 13.0

 Total 20.9 43.7 27.8 7.6

Students who work 17.1 40.7 40.4 1.8

Employees who study 20.5 46.0 23.1 10.4

 All full-time students 21.5 39.0 38.0 1.5

Students who work 15.5 37.9 45.8 0.7

Employees who study 21.5 40.9 35.2 2.5

 All part-time students 20.4 47.2 20.5 12.0

Students who work 20.1 46.0 30.1 3.9

Employees who study 20.2 47.6 19.3 12.9

1

Includes programs that do not offer a formal award.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Total and “All” rows for each subgroup also include students who did

not work while enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Part-time

Male

Female

Total

Full-time

Total

Full-time

Part-time